Bank of England

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have changed the remit to the Bank of England with regard to the funding of commercial banks and building societies.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the mechanism by which the Bank of England provides central bank money for banks and building societies is a matter for the Bank, which is responsible for setting the framework of its sterling money market operations.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that I am obliged for that Answer. As my noble friend will know, our right honourable friend the Chancellor did an interview with the Financial Times in which a major change was proposed, to which my noble friend has not referred. I think that I had better quote the article because it is very important. It states:
	"The Bank is said to be relaxed about the 'Cobra' committee idea, which it believes clarifies the existing situation where the chancellor ultimately decides whether the central bank"
	should be the bank of last resort. That is quite a major change and I should be glad if my noble friend could confirm it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am always distressed when my noble friend is not satisfied with my original Answer, but he was asking me about the remit to the Bank of England and the funding of commercial banks and I gave an accurate and proper response to the situation as it is now. In his supplementary he referred to the consultations presently taking place on possible future changes to those operations. The Chancellor indicated that such changes would be the subject of widespread consultation, which is presently taking place, and that they would in due course require legislation. So we have a long way to go before these issues become effective. My noble friend will also recognise that this issue revolves around other aspects of the tripartite arrangement and not only those to which he referred.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in the interview that the Chancellor gave to the Financial Times he seemed to anticipate a greater role for himself, as chairman of the COBRA committee, and also for the FSA. What could the Chancellor or the FSA have done in the Northern Rock situation under the new powers that he anticipates for them?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is comforting to hear a member of the Opposition asking questions about what we could have done in the past. They have tended to lecture me on what we should have done, so there is some improvement there. It is clear, as has been expressed many times both here and in the other place, that we have lessons to learn from the development of the crisis last summer in relation to each aspect of the tripartite structure. We believe that that structure has stood the test of time and that it will continue to enjoy the confidence of the banking community and the wider public. But improvements may be effected, some of which relate to the Financial Services Authority, and the Chancellor was referring to possible changes there.

Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the legislation that set up the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England referred to it being scrutinised by Parliament, by which was meant both Houses? I understand that our right honourable friend the Chancellor is appearing before the Treasury Select Committee of the other place. Has my noble friend been informed whether the Chancellor proposes to appear before our Economic Affairs Committee during this immensely important consultation period so that he might consult us on the way forward, since several of us here know quite a bit about the subject?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, although I certainly would not gainsay the latter point, my noble friend will recognise that I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's diary secretary. I know of his diary commitment to appear this week before the Treasury Select Committee of the other place. It is a highly important meeting at which these issues will be covered with considerable intensity and we will all learn from those exchanges. However, I cannot hold out hope for a positive response in the near future to my noble friend's seductive suggestion.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the proposal in respect of the COBRA committee in reality reflects what has happened with Northern Rock, in that the Chancellor determined that Virgin should be the preferred bidder and forced that view on the Bank of England and Northern Rock? Will he further confirm or deny recent reports that both the Virgin group and the other group currently in the running to take over Northern Rock are seeking to wriggle out of their previous commitment to make an initial substantial payment back to the Bank of England as part of the deal to take over Northern Rock?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is probing in a very sensitive area in terms of the development of the discussions.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is all right, but the noble Lord is prone at times to be very definitive in his solutions. When he last spoke on this matter in the House, I think that he was advocating immediate nationalisation of the bank. The Government are properly keeping options open against the distinct possibility that these issues can be resolved by private company action. We must wait and see. The noble Lord and the House can rest assured that the Government want to see the outcome that best serves the public.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, a few moments ago the Minister said again that the tripartite arrangements had stood the test of time. The plain fact, as he knows, is that they failed their first real test. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that he is happy for his written advice on the tripartite arrangements in connection with Northern Rock to be made public. The Government have so far refused. What are they afraid of?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have nothing to be afraid of because we have been clear throughout these developments that we are dealing with the public responsibility. There was very considerable investment in the Northern Rock bank, a private institution which ran into severe difficulties that had the potential to produce the most deleterious consequences for the wider financial community and with a cost to the whole nation. The Government and the tripartite structure responded positively and intelligently. As there was such pressure at the time, we can learn lessons from how all three partners acted. However, as the noble Baroness will recognise, the chief executive officer of the British Bankers' Association is broadly in favour of sustaining the tripartite system, reflecting the fact that although improvements can be made to its operation, those structures should be in place. That is the view of the banking community and of the Government.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm—

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are into the ninth minute.

Extradition: UK-US Treaty

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to renegotiate the current extradition treaty with the United States.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not taking any steps to renegotiate our extradition treaty with the United States. The treaty came into force on 26April 2007, when the United States and the United Kingdom Governments exchanged instruments of ratification. Extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States are balanced and fair, despite differences in terminology and procedure.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, at present it is easier for people to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States than vice versa. Is that position not intolerable because of the difference in burdens of proof? At a time when there seem to be signs of a considerable mood change towards a greater emphasis on fairness and justice in international relations in the United States, is this not rather a good time to reopen the issue?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not accept that premise. The requirements are as broadly comparable as it is possible to achieve between two different jurisdictions. It is worth setting this in context by giving some figures. Since 1 January 2004, when the prima facie evidential requirement was removed from the United States, 37 people have been extradited from this country to the United States. Of those, 11 were to face allegations of so-called white-collar crimes such as mail fraud and satellite signal fraud. However, 26 of them—or 70 per cent—involved serious offences such as murder, rape, indecent assault, drugs and child pornography. Thirteen people have travelled from the United States to the United Kingdom, of whom four were for white-collar crimes—so it is roughly 30 per cent in each case. It is also interesting that in each case 54 per cent of the requests applied for have been granted.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I suggest that in this regard there is not injustice but a disparity. Is there not a case to review these reciprocal arrangements—one reason being the plea-bargaining structure in the United States?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, again, I do not think that that is necessary. The United States is a mature democracy with a legal system that is underpinned by its Bill of Rights, which owes it origins to our own Magna Carta. There are full and proper safeguards in the 2003 Act.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the United States is the UK's largest extradition partner, so it is a very serious matter to ensure full equality of treatment between the two countries. Do the people of this county have to await a more liberal Administration in the United States and this country to achieve full reciprocity?
	The Minister says that there is substantial equality but, with respect, that is not correct. The sixth amendment to the American constitution requires a greater standard of fairness than this extradition treaty—the Ashcroft-Blunkett treaty. Why can we not seek to remove six words from Article 8 of the treaty and achieve full reciprocity and fairness?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I repeat that the requirements are broadly comparable. This is not only the case with the United States; the requirement not to provide prima facie evidence is not unusual—it applies also to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and to all the EU countries that are signed up to the ECE. That has been the case since 1991. So this is not at all unusual and is, I think, perfectly fair.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, can the Minister accept that the figures quoted by him are probably less than meaningful, bearing in mind the fact that the population of the United States is roughly five times that of the United Kingdom?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a point that I could not have made better. The difference in numbers of those who have gone from one country to the other relate to the fact that there are some 260 million people in the United States and some 60 million here.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is it not the case that the EU-US extradition arrangements provide greater guarantees than this bilateral treaty?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. When we go from the UK to the US we have to show "reasonable suspicion" and, the other way around, "probable cause" has to be shown. We ask the US to provide information that would justify the issue of a warrant for an arrest of a person within the judge's jurisdiction. As I have said previously, the US is a mature democracy and these arrangements are broadly comparable.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, could the Minister advise us how many cases in which the British Government have asked for extradition were related to terrorism?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the noble Baroness later in writing. I think that it is a very small number—one or two cases, in fact.

Armed Forces: Harmony Guidelines

Lord Luke: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and at his specific request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	How many soldiers were deployed on overseas operations in the course of the year 2007 in breach of the harmony guidelines; and what proportion of the trained strength of the Army this figure represents.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I could take this opportunity to send our very best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and wish him a speedy recovery.
	In monitoring compliance with harmony guidelines, we do not distinguish between deployments and other causes of separated service. As at 30 September 2007, 10,110 Army personnel had exceeded the guideline of 415 days' separated service in the previous 30 months. This represents 10.3 per cent of the trained strength of the Army.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words about my noble friend, and I am glad to tell your Lordships that he is going on extremely well and arrived home from the hospital this morning. I hope that the noble Baroness will pass on our good wishes to her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and that she will soon be fit again.
	I also thank the noble Baroness for her Answer to the Question. These dismal figures amplify those in the MoD Autumn Performance Report and are surely evidence of overstretch, if the guidelines mean anything. Can the noble Baroness say whether and how the total number of our forces in Iraq has varied in the past six months and what were the numbers in Iraq on Christmas Day?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I can let the noble Lord, Lord Luke, have in writing the number of personnel in Iraq on Christmas Day, and the number relating to his question on Iraq. No, we do not believe that the Army is overstretched; we believe that the Army is stretched, but senior military officers advise that the situation is manageable. However, we remain confident that the Army is capable of meeting current levels of commitment, although we recognise that these levels cannot be sustained indefinitely. The overall situation, however, is improving and we expect that trend to continue.
	There has been a gradual improvement as regards the harmony guidelines. For instance, in 2005, 16.9 per cent of personnel exceeded them, whereas in 2007, the figure was 10.3 per cent—so the trend is improving.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, when Ministers will stop exceeding the defence planning assumptions by 100 per cent?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl's question. That is no fault of his.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the defence planning assumptions are the MoD's high-level plan about the level of operations we should be undertaking. We are currently exceeding the defence planning assumptions by 100 per cent. When will we get it to a reasonable level?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is no secret that the Army is operating above planning assumptions. However, the vast majority of personnel are meeting harmony guidelines. Some 10.3 per cent are exceeding harmony guidelines. That tells me that we are stretched, but not overstretched.

Lord Soley: My Lords, every one of us recognises the enormous pressures on the Armed Forces at the moment—they are operating under very great pressure and we appreciate and respect that. But is it not incumbent upon individuals or political parties who believe that they are overstretched to tell this House and other people what commitments they would cut, or the extent to which they would expand the Armed Forces to meet those commitments?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I would make the point that when we talk about the Army or the Armed Forces being stretched, we are talking about shortages in certain trades and disciplines. Others have a lot more experience than I have in dealing with these matters, but I believe that that has always been the case—there have always been shortages in certain trades and disciplines. These are being addressed through retention incentives, through increased recruiting and by rebalancing the Army under future structures. At the same time, we are reducing some operational commitments in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland and now in Iraq. This helps to decrease the frequency of operational tours, both for units and for individuals.

Lord Addington: My Lord, will the Minister accept that there is a perception that the stress on the pinch points of those particular trades is now more intense than ever? Do we have a point that we cannot go to if we are to maintain the effectiveness of those units, with the stress that is caused to long-serving, experienced personnel?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are continually keeping under consideration those pinch-point areas that the noble Lord referred to. Through FAS, through the new reorganisation and reroling of specialisms within the Army, we hope to start meeting those pinch points. I believe very firmly, as do the senior officers in the services, that we have those pinch points under control, we are aware of them, and we do not see the position as catastrophic in any way.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the meeting of harmony guidelines is an important factor in morale. When were the present harmony guidelines set up; are they under review; and is there any likelihood that the present figures will be reduced?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I said earlier, the figures are being reduced over time. In 2005, the harmony guidelines were exceeded by nearly 17 per cent. Now they are exceeded by 10.3 per cent, so those figures are reducing over time.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, my question relates to the figures that are the harmony guidelines, rather than the number of individuals who are not meeting them.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there are no plans to reduce the length of time for operational tours, for instance, or to reduce the figures, within the harmony guidelines, as regards not exceeding 415 days within a 30-month limit. So 415 days would be the time when our armed personnel would be expected to be on separated service. The rest of their 30 months would be on a home base.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in an attempt to meet the harmony guidelines, essential training is being cut?

Baroness Crawley: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that.

Dr David Kelly

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, as a result of new evidence recently published, they will set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate in full the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have no plans to do so.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the new book by Norman Baker MP, which collects a large amount of new evidence? I do not know whether he read it over the Christmas holiday, but it is quite a frightening read. It concludes that suicide by Dr Kelly would be extremely unlikely and is certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt. As my noble friend will know, the Hutton inquiry was not statutory, and no evidence was taken under oath, so is it not now necessary for the Government to set up a proper statutory inquiry to investigate fully the circumstances of the death of this senior government employee?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have read extracts from the report, which I would describe as a good Christmas read. There was a thorough inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, who reached the conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide. He found that the cause of Dr Kelly's death was:
	"Haemorrhage ... Incised wounds to the left wrist ... Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis".
	He was,
	"satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly",
	because,
	"A very careful and lengthy examination of the area where his body was found by police officers and by a forensic biologist found no traces whatever of a struggle or of any involvement by a third party ... The wounds to his wrist were inflicted by a knife which came from Dr Kelly's desk in his study in his home, and ... It is highly unlikely that a third party or third parties could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of Coproxamol tablets".

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, used an exceptional power to direct the coroner not to continue with the original inquest and not to resume it unless there was an exceptional reason. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, is the only time this provision has been used in a non-statutory inquiry. Surely the new evidence that has come to light since the Hutton inquiry and to which Mr Norman Baker refers in his book is an exceptional reason, which requires the events to be fully investigated, witnesses to be called and cross-examined and a verdict to be reached beyond reasonable doubt, just as in the current lengthy inquest relating to the Princess of Wales.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: But, my Lords, the Hutton report was sent to the coroner at the end of the inquiry in accordance with Section 17A and, in an open court hearing on 14 March 2004, the coroner himself decided that there was no exceptional reason to resume the adjourned inquest. There is much supposition in the report but, if evidence there is, it is open to Mr Baker and any other person, if they wish, to seek a new inquest under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely that is not good enough. The book by Mr Baker is well researched and shows that there is no evidence that Dr Kelly was suicidal in any way. Furthermore, Mr Baker absolves MI6 and the CIA from any blame but believes that perhaps some very nasty people in Iraq, who did not want things disclosed, might have been behind his death. Do we not owe it to Dr Kelly's wife and family to have another, thorough inquiry in the light of this new evidence?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that any of us can speculate on what Dr Kelly's family are thinking at the present time or around the tragic circumstances of his death some years ago. I have nothing further to add. The Government believe that the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in this matter was conclusive. The noble and learned Lord set out the reasons for his conclusion. I say again that, if any person has evidence, they can take it to the authorities—to the police—and there is a procedure for a further inquest to be held. That is surely the approach that should be taken here.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 6 [Amendment of target percentages]:

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Clause 6, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) That power may only be exercised if—
	(a) a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee on Climate Change;(b) the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament;and it must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved.
	( ) It is the duty of the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change to lay it before both Houses of Parliament and make a resolution for its approval."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: After what has been a rather eventful Christmas break—and I hope the Minister is recovering from his inadvertent break during our recess—we return to consider this important Bill. The fact that these three weeks have gone by in a flash rather suggests that 2050 may not be as far off as we imagine. I am moving Amendment No.39 but I will be speaking to all other amendments in this group. It is appropriate that we return to talk on this subject because it is one that we have raised in previous debates. I remember clarifying our view that the Bill needed beefing up and that the best way of doing this was by strengthening the role of the Committee on Climate Change in its triangular relationship with the Government through the Secretary of State and Parliament. These amendments put the Committee on Climate Change centre stage in determining the effectiveness of the Bill in achieving its objectives. It makes it difficult for the Secretary of State to counter the decisions of the Committee and to override it in setting targets and budgets.
	How in practice do these amendments operate? They limit the order-making powers of the Secretary of State when amending target percentages as well as carbon budgets by transferring the power to the Committee on Climate Change, subject to parliamentary approval. Let me explain how this would work. Essentially no targets could be amended without the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and the approval of both Houses in Parliament and an order must be made if those conditions are met. The Committee on Climate Change is subject to the same limitation in the exercise of power as the Secretary of State is under the Bill. The triangular balance is maintained—committee, Government and Parliament. The detailed form of the order would of course be left to the Secretary of State. Perhaps I can elaborate on this scene. As on the last day of debate on this Bill, we on these Benches will today be repeating the broad themes that form the substance of our approach. These amendments entrench those themes. We have mentioned that it is of the utmost importance that science and not politics leads the strategy against climate change and we have repeated that there is a need to strengthen the committee's powers and to limit those of the Secretary of State. I have already rehearsed our motivation for doing this. There is an important point about balance of power that should not be overlooked. Our amendments are designed to shift that balance—I make no secret of that fact—but not to completely reverse it. We recognise that tackling climate change will require the co-ordination of Parliament, the Committee and the Government. It is the Secretary of State who will implement the policies and I do not want to suggest for a moment cutting the Government out of the equation. After all, they are the agency through whom all will be delivered.
	However, we on these Benches feel that it is simply not acceptable for the Secretary of State to be the one to set the targets. If the scientific realities are to be addressed, we must follow scientific recommendations. The only reason the Secretary of State would have for straying from the committee's recommendations would be political, which cannot be allowed to happen in this framework and in the way in which the Bill is constructed. How we implement the suggested strategies might well be a political issue and consequently left to politicians. However, the targets are in a sense an absolute issue.
	As the Bill stands there is not enough check on the power of the Secretary of State on matters of science. Our amendments would shift the balance back to where it belongs, such that no Minister could change a target by order if he feared he might not achieve it. When considering the magnitude of the issue and the consequential significance of changing the targets, we on these Benches feel that it should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If there is a circumstance that would make the Minister stray from the recommendation, he would have an opportunity to make his case publicly. That mechanism would allow for the scrutiny that a change of this magnitude requires.
	I suspect that the Minister thinks that we on these Benches perhaps go too far in our emphasis on the driving role of science in these matters. Even if he will not go as far as we would like, does he at least agree that there is a fundamental problem with leaving so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State when setting targets and budgets? Does he not think that there needs to be some shift or ground given beyond just merely taking advice that could make the Bill more effective and increase the public's confidence in the ambitious goals that we are setting for ourselves?
	I expect that noble Lords will have much to say on this subject, and I will listen to the Minister's response with interest. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: I was not going to follow my noble friend immediately because I thought that other Members of the Committee would rise.
	Before the Minister responds I have one or two observations to make about the amendment. My noble friend has performed a valuable task in raising an important issue, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am not absolutely certain that the balance in the proposed scheme is completely right. We need to give a good deal of thought to this critical issue before we go further in Committee. Interestingly enough, it was not a matter that we really dealt with in the Joint Committee on the draft Bill.
	My tentative reaction was prompted by the brief that I received from Friends of the Earth, which, like my noble friend, wants to strengthen the Bill to make it more effective, but which also has doubts about the solution that he has suggested. That organisation points out that these are not just scientific questions; it describes them as moral and ethical, involving judgments about what we and the rest of the world should be doing. In that sense they are political issues as well. There is a case for saying that such crucial issues should not entirely depend on the advice of a committee, however well qualified or well respected it may be. These are crucial decisions that will affect all our people and generations to come.
	I suppose that my noble friend will say that in a sense it is not entirely left to the committee because Parliament will have its say. Parliament will debate the issues and can enter its views before final decisions are taken. My noble friend said that he wanted to strengthen the powers of the Committee on Climate Change, as do I. He said that he wanted to limit the powers of the Secretary of State; this is where I begin to ask my question. Of course the Secretary of State should have to seek the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. A whole series of amendments elsewhere should ensure not only that that should happen but that the advice should be published, and reasons should be given by the Secretary of State if he does not follow the advice.
	My noble friend talked about some shift in the balance between the two. It is the extent of that shift that concerns me. If my thoughts were triggered by the paper that I received from Friends of the Earth, perhaps they were triggered still more by the remarkable book that I read during the parliamentary recess by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and Carole Nakhle entitled Out of the Energy Labyrinth. It should be compulsory reading for almost everyone who takes part in these debates and considers these issues.
	When we come to a later group of amendments, I shall make the primary points that arise from my noble friend's recommendations. The point that he makes is essentially that you cannot separate the kind of things that we are trying to do in the Bill from the whole issue of energy supply and the immediate and growing risks to energy. He argues that energy policy and the policies dealt with in this Climate Change Bill are interlinked and cannot be separated. Indeed, he goes further. He argues—I shall come back to this during debate on a later group of amendments—that it is all very well setting all these great targets in the Bill. We hope that we have them right and that they can be achieved but, if they are achieved, that will be done a very long time in the future. In the mean time, we have to deal with the consequences of our present carbon levels and the effects they are having, and that leads us to the whole question of adaptation, which we will come to again later in our debates on the Bill.
	My noble friend argues that, if you are to carry world opinion or our European partners down this road, it is all very well saying that we are going to set a lot of long-term targets which may cause great difficulties and the people will not see the results until many years later; however, they will be acutely concerned—possibly quite soon—with an energy crisis which may have political causes: further warfare and turmoil in the Middle East, Russian policy or whatever. He believes that by bringing the two things together you can persuade people to act and to act decisively. If you link energy policy with climate change policy, you are more likely to achieve the result than if you treat them separately. Some of us have criticised the Government because we feel that their energy White Paper does not go far enough and that perhaps their energy policy is not linked closely enough to the objectives in the Bill.
	That brings me back to my noble friend's amendment. It seems that if you to link the two things effectively, the Secretary of State must have a role. The Committee on Climate Change can consider the energy equation; in a later group of amendments, when we talk about the things that it has to consider, I shall argue that it should do so. However, ultimately only the Secretary of State and the Government can effectively bring together the action that is needed on energy security and climate change. Therefore, I do not want to weaken the power of the Secretary of State to act if it is only he who can act. Of course I want him to have the advice of a very strong Committee on Climate Change. I am all for strengthening that role and for ensuring that the advice is published and that the Secretary of State sets out any reasons for disagreeing with it.
	What worries me slightly about my noble friend's amendment is that it seems almost to eliminate the ability of the Secretary of State—by the Secretary of State, I mean the Government as a whole—to take action if it is necessary to do so, particularly in the energy field. Therefore, I go with my noble friend quite a long way down the road that he is asking me to follow, but before we reach Report I hope that he and the rest of the Committee will consider very carefully how to get the balance absolutely right so that we have a strong and effective Committee on Climate Change but do not neuter the role of the Secretary of State to such an extent that we cannot bring together these two vital and absolutely interlinked objectives of achieving energy security and our aims regarding climate change.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It is always very difficult when two noble friends present obverse and reverse sides of the same argument. It is an argument which goes right to the core of this Bill and the way in which this subject is being dealt with. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, it raises the issue of government structure and the way in which the Government do their business. Clearly, as I have said before, one department is dealing with energy policy and another is dealing with the consequences of that policy. The result is not that there is not cohesion but that there is a lack of definition and clarity of perception.
	However, in the end, it seems to me that the argument about the powers of the Secretary of State is subordinate to an even more powerful argument, which, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, is the control of Parliament. Ultimately, as I hope the Minister will acknowledge, the Secretary of State has no power except for that derived through Parliament and, in this case, through this Bill. It seems to me that that is the sovereignty that we have to preserve. I accept that essentially the executive authority of the Government comes from the Crown and, in that sense, Parliament has the right of oversight and of regulation. However, when it comes to new legislation, there is no question at all in my mind that the view of Parliament has to be paramount.
	I listened to my noble friend Lord Taylor with a certain amount of delight because I can envisage the time when we become the Government and I shall be embarrassed to some degree by his present proposals. I can imagine a future Conservative Secretary of State having slight difficulty as a consequence of these amendments. I am not absolutely convinced one way or the other about the argument but I am convinced that parliamentary control is paramount. That, it seems to me, is preserved in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Taylor because the orders will have to be subject to the approval of both Houses. That in itself might lead us into difficulties in this House where, as a matter of custom and tradition, in the past we have not voted against orders even when we felt that we should or only on the rarest of occasions.
	We need to recognise the territory that we are getting into in this Bill. It goes way beyond the Bill itself, which is essentially procedural and sets out a parliamentary mechanism. It does not deal with the detail of the energy policies that will be required. In a month or two, a planning Bill will come to us from the other place and it will have to deal with aspects of the implementation of things that may make this policy and energy policy work. The whole complex has to come together and fit but I think that on balance, because my noble friend has preserved the oversight of Parliament, his amendments deserve the most serious consideration.

Lord Teverson: I will break in on a good quality debate among those on the Conservative Benches. The noble Lord is right to stress that changing targets is a crucial part of the Bill. Getting the balance between science and political decisions—between the powers of Parliament and the Secretary of State—is important and difficult.
	I was heavily persuaded by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We say that it is important that the part of this amendment that says that the recommendation is improved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is right. We should remember that this Bill looks to 2050. Even within that timescale, this House might be reformed—at least slightly—so that it feels that it has the ability and integrity to reject orders more regularly than it has done in the past.
	However, my own view is that we cannot be—or the Government or the Secretary of State cannot be—completely tied down by the Committee on Climate Change. Indeed, if this amendment went through, it could lead to extreme pressure on the independence of the committee when there was a diversity of views. That argument may not be completely de rigueur, but it is practical—that these different bodies and people have different roles. Therefore it is essential that the climate change committee has to be consulted, heard and considered on any target changes. However, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State has to retain a sensible degree of executive power in this area.

Lord Campbell-Savours: If you want to concentrate the committee's mind on the need to act responsibly, you have to give it real power. The danger of a committee that does not feel that it has power is that it will act irresponsibly. It may well come up with conclusions that are simply impractical. I disagree profoundly with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. If I might say, there is an element of inconsistency in his case, when I compare it with his earlier contributions during the passage of this Bill.
	At this party, I see three people or organisations taking decisions—the committee, Parliament and the Government. There are going to be conflicts between those three. The problem is that when Governments take decisions, they are subject to all the pressures that they could be subject to. Members of this House, many of whom have been Ministers, know exactly the pressures to which I am referring—such as lobbyists and outside organisations—all of whom are exerting pressure and often producing decisions and making recommendations to Parliament that Members of Parliament, in their wildest understanding and dreams, cannot even begin to understand.
	You often look at legislation and think, "Where on earth did they get this idea from?". For example, the Gambling Bill went through and many Members of the other place could not understand who had asked for it. In all the years that I was a Member of Parliament in the other House, I never had one letter asking for gambling legislation to be introduced and yet, somehow, it appeared out of the woodwork. It arose as a result of pressure being exerted by lobbyists. It is those pressures that worry me. As they exert their way through the system—and they will be exerted on the Government when they are faced with crisis decisions in this very area where important decisions are going to be taken on policy—the Whips drive them through, very often in opposition to the views of Members of Parliament. That does not happen uniquely on the Labour Benches; it happens on all sides of the House. We all know that Members of Parliament often find themselves voting in Lobbies voting in a way that they do not altogether agree with, but in this area the danger is that decisions will make their way through the system. They will find their way into Parliament and will have been promoted by Government. They will be opposed in the Committee on Climate Change because they are not its recommendations, and they will simply be driven through the House of Commons. I am very worried about that.
	I like this kind of amendment. I do not think that we should turn our noses up and say that we have to secure the position of Secretaries of State who must free to take decisions regardless of the view of the scientific community, which has repeatedly been called in aid during the course of the many amendments that have been moved on the Bill. I hope that Ministers will look sympathetically on this amendment.
	Before I close, I shall refer to the Prime Minister's comments when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee, because it might help to guide our judgments on these matters. During the Recess I watched the whole of the Prime Minister's contribution to that committee. He talked about top-down government, which is quite interesting in the context of this debate. In reply to a question from Tony Wright, he said:
	"If you look at every problem that a modern economy and society like ours faces, whether it is the environment, whether it is terrorism, whether it is community cohesion or whether it is skills or facing the global economy, one of the lessons that I have learnt is that you cannot have top-down government anymore, you cannot make decisions and assume that people will simply follow them. Most of the decisions you are having to make can only be successful if people themselves are part of the process. If you take climate change, you cannot solve the problem of climate change without the personal and social responsibility of individuals, so you cannot have a sort of top-down government dictating climate change targets without at the same time having a debate about the personal and social responsibility of people and people have, therefore, got to be involved in that debate".
	I agree with that sentiment. All I am saying to Ministers is that if that is the Prime Minister's sentiment, why in this particularly precious area, where the very future of the planet is concerned, can we not delegate this area of responsibility to those outside who, if given the power, will act responsibly and come up with the right recommendations?

Lord May of Oxford: I shall speak in support of what I conceive to be the essence of this amendment: the preservation of an appropriate balance between Government, Parliament and the science in the broadest sense, embracing the economic as well as the physical and biological sciences, made immanent, one hopes, in an appropriately constituted climate change committee. In briefly elaborating that, I crave the Committee's indulgence and apologise for being out of the country for the first two Committee sittings. I have read the reports with considerable interest. I was not surprised but very favourably impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who frequently said that while he did not necessarily agree, he could see the point and would go back to the department. I am equally clear that I am surrounded in this Committee by people who understand far better than I how to construct the verbiage of these arcana, which will put in place properly what we all wish—an appropriate balance between Government, Parliament and a climate change committee.
	It is not going to be easy. This discussion started as if it was coming from only one Bench, but we are looking at a time span of 50 years in which different Governments will come and go. We need a framework that is robust against those changes.
	Perhaps I may venture—and then I will shut up—a typical academic mini-discourse on the subject. A fascinating paper is about to appear in one of the world's premier journals. It is one among many such papers as people concentrate more on the social science of how to resolve what is variously called the free-rider problem, the prisoner's dilemma or the tragedy of the commons. It is a fascinating and depressing experiment done by a group of people in Europe, but headed in Switzerland. Students were put together in groups and each group member given a chunk of money. They went through 10 rounds of five-year quotas, as it were. They played 10 rounds in which each student had to put in a certain fraction of the money that they owed with the idea that, at the end of the exercise, if they had reached a certain target sum of money, they would all get to keep the money they had not put in. If they failed, however, they lost all their money. It is a crude and flawed metaphor for asking people to make decisions today that will lead to later and later decisions contingent on what other people decide about whether we will achieve the goals that we are trying to set ourselves.
	Depressingly, the outcome of those experiments was that at the beginning most people tried to cheat and hoped that others would help. Then they realised that they were all going to lose and tried to catch up. There was a curious pattern of not enough action at first and then trying to catch up at the end. More often than not everybody lost and they all went away with nothing. That is why I am concerned about the inevitable political tensions to take it easy now—not to do the uncomfortable thing, not to bite the bullet on nuclear power, not to put in tough building restrictions. You can name your own favourite thing that we need to do. This is why I would have preferred annual and not five-year targets, so that they were not sowing seeds for a future Government to reap. That is why I would have preferred the Secretary of State to outline in general and not binding terms broadly how he saw the annual target being met. I recognise some of the impracticalities.
	The real need is to recognise the essentially different interests of individual Governments and even individual Parliaments. The supervening realities against these unresolved paradoxes of co-operation lead me to believe that we have to be really careful about putting this legislation in place in a way that is even-handed in ensuring the strength of the appropriately constituted climate change committee, the Government—made appropriately immanent in the Secretary of State—and both Houses of Parliament. Much as I listened to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I am in favour of the broad spirit of the amendment. I think that the Committee probably is also, if it is appropriately done.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not joined in this discussion before but I listened to the debate with great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about the problem being between Parliament, the Government and the committee. The noble Lord, Lord May, referred to the committee as science, which he is quite right to do.
	I remind my noble friend Lord Taylor and the Committee that not only Parliament and the Government will be concerned; the devolved Parliament and Assemblies will be concerned as well. They will have a great deal to say on this. Mr Salmond, the First Minister, is already saying that in no way will there be nuclear power plants in Scotland. I think he is saying that for political reasons; he cannot be saying it on scientific or cost grounds. But he is saying it and he is going to go on doing so. The Government know that and no doubt will allow for it when they bring forward their proposals. The political situation will be quite complex. It will not be just the Westminster Parliament and the Government having to deal with these matters with the committee, it will be the devolved bodies as well. I would ask my noble friend to remember that when he thinks about the future of his amendment.
	My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was speaking as a former Secretary of State for Wales, and no doubt he was thinking about what is to happen when someone has to make a critical decision on something immediately or in the very short term. As I understood him, he was asking where the power is to lie. The situation is rather more complex than just that of Westminster dealing with this matter politically. Indeed, I think that it will be very problematic. I am not sure of the answer, but it should be taken into consideration.

Lord Puttnam: I urge the Minister to regard this amendment as an entirely honourable and almost noble attempt to strike a balance in an extremely difficult area. I want to add one argument to those of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who I agree with entirely. Let us remember that the people principally affected by this Bill are the young. They are going to demand a different kind of politics, and I think that what this amendment attempts to do, not unsuccessfully, is to strike the type of balance that the young will be seeking. We will be asking for behavioural change from them in the form of changes in attitude towards the environment and changes in thinking about their futures. I do not believe that all that can be achieved through a determinist position by any Government, and I identify completely with the quotation used by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I hope that the Prime Minister meant what he said to the Liaison Committee because he is spot-on: politics will not continue to be done as it has been in the past, and this Bill is a litmus test of how far the Government are prepared to advance in changing the very nature of politics.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful for the debate. I do not want to be accused of not listening because I agree with many of the points that have been made. Also, although there has not been a lot of support for the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, he made a central point that seems to be lost sometimes; that is, that "the Secretary of State" means the Government. As an ex-Secretary of State, the noble Lord probably realises that. Decisions are not made by an individual in a ministry; it is not like that. It is not possible—although it would be convenient, of course—to have all our energy provisions wrapped up in one Bill with one ministry in charge. All that is for the Government. Otherwise there would be no division of labour at all.
	The noble Lord, Lord May, apologised for not being here for previous sittings, and we understand fully the reasons why. But he was certainly here in spirit because his amendment was fully debated even though he was not personally present to move it. Members of the Committee found it incredibly helpful to have that amendment before them that day because it provided us with a possible lifeboat while we looked for a solution.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said when he kicked off, this group of amendments raises the question of the relationship between the Government, the Committee on Climate Change and Parliament, which we discussed before Christmas and no doubt will discuss again. My answer today is the same: so far as issues of transparency are concerned, we undertake to take this group of amendments, as with others before it, away for consideration. That is genuinely meant and is not a one-off response to a particular debate. There is a theme running through the amendments concerning the Committee on Climate Change and its relationship with Parliament and the Government.
	In the end the country will still want to know who is in charge, and thus be able to hold them accountable. The country cannot demand that the Committee on Climate Change be accountable to "the people"; people will demand that from their elected representatives whether they be at Westminster or in the devolved Administrations. We have to find a satisfactory way round that. But as I say, consideration has already commenced regarding the transparency of the decision-making process and the relationships between the three bodies and it is hoped that we will be able to come forward with something on that at Report. It is not my job to push the Bill along; it is the will of the Committee. I only have the same message to give in this area of debate: we will very seriously consider looking at the transparency arrangements.
	We do not believe that the decisions should be made by an unelected body. They must be made by a body accountable to Parliament, with proper scrutiny, which is another area that we have committed to consider again. Obviously we want advice from the independent committee, and we want far more robust scrutiny than Parliament or its mechanisms have at the moment. We will take away and consider aspects of that part of the process; it is important. We will do this where there are similar thrusts behind different groups of amendments, which are clearly there on the Marshalled List. Looking ahead, there are amendments to Clauses 19 and 20 that cover the same issue. I shall make exactly the same commitment on behalf of the Government.
	Amendment No. 97 specifically relates to the alteration of the length of budget periods under Clause 18. The Committee on Climate Change does not currently have a role. This is because the only circumstances in which the powers in Clause 18 may be exercised are if a change to budgetary periods is needed to keep them in line with similar periods under European or international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. As we have discussed, the key reason for choosing the five-year period proposed in the Bill is to ensure that the UK framework mirrors international timescales. There is no need for the committee to have a role in decisions about the length of budget periods, as any decision to move away from a five-year period may only be based on changes in the international situation. Any use of that power would simply realign the United Kingdom with those international frameworks. I make that point in relation to Amendment No. 97 because I do not want to be too dismissive. There is a practical reason why the committee will not have a role in changing the budget periods.
	The general thrust of this group of amendments concerns the relationship between the three bodies, certainly as far as Parliament, individual Members in both Houses and people outside are concerned. They need to trust that the system is working and can only do so if it is genuinely transparent. As I said, we will come forward after discussion with proposals to make sure that this issue is far more transparent than it is in the Bill at present.

Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend responds to the Minister perhaps I may raise a couple of issues. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, was able to be with us today and I reiterate our thanks to him for his previous amendment. I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who reminded us of how important this Bill is to the young. My grandchildren are aged 14, 12 and 12. When you ask them what is important to them, they bring up climate change as one of the most important things. I am sure that the ways we do business now will have changed enormously in 50 years' time.
	I support my noble friend's amendment. It may not be perfect, but that is another matter. I am a strong believer in the need for a consensus between the Government, science—though I am no scientist myself—the committee itself and Parliament. I am raising these points now, before my noble friend replies to the Minister's response, in order to try to help the Committee. In the previous two sittings the Minister has been very honest in responding and has taken our points on board, saying that he will come back with ideas on Report. I have a feeling that we are covering the same ground again and again in many of these amendments. Is there any chance that we might have a more general feeling for how the Government might meet us halfway on some of the proposals that we debated in the previous two sittings and are debating again today? Otherwise we are clearly going to keep going over the same ground, raising the same issues with the Minister, and we will get no further until Report. That does not mean that I think that it is a waste of time. But perhaps we are not progressing on this Bill as we have on previous Bills when the Government came back between sittings and gave us a slightly fuller response on how they saw matters progressing.

Lord Rooker: I do not know about previous Bills but the House has its procedures. We are not revising a Bill that we have received from the other place; we are doing the first round of work and it would be impossible for the Government to keep coming back during the Committee stage. Once the Committee stage is over we shall complete an analysis of the voices—we are working on that now—discuss that with the parties in the House, collectively as well as individually, and see where we can move; we know areas where we want to be able to move now. What the noble Baroness is asking for is impossible during the Committee stage.

Lord Teverson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the Bill is an indicator of the way in which politics needs to change in the future. However, we will not change politics by delegating to a meritocratic, although extremely worthy and important, committee. The key is changing the way in which democratic politics works in this country, rather than this particular area. That is why it is a risk to put huge powers into the Climate Change Bill. I am persuaded by many of the things the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said and we on these Benches will consider this fully again.
	I agree totally with the core element of the amendment, which is that the Climate Change Committee needs to be strengthened, to have greater authority and to play a greater part in the process. What that balance is we shall have to come to at the next stage.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his positive and genuine response to the weight of the arguments that Members of the Committee have expressed today. Their contributions have been thoughtful and I hope noble Lords have a picture of what we on these Benches are trying to achieve through the amendments. I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in showing how delicate the balance is between the executive powers of government and the authority that is given to a body which is not democratically accountable.
	It has been a very useful debate. I am sorry that there are occasions on which the Minister feels that he has covered this ground before, but it is an important point which lies at the heart of the Bill. It is useful to consider these matters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I suspect, has probably moderated his initial reaction in the light of the debate. I hope that is also true of the Government.
	In another place, where they are allowed to discuss these things, no doubt the same kind of argument went on when the current Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that the Monetary Committee of the Bank of England should set interest targets. No doubt these kinds of issues weighed heavily then. I do not think there is any body of opinion in either House of Parliament which would argue against that decision today. It bears out entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if you want a body's recommendations to be treated with the gravity you require, you have to give it authority. That lies at the base of these amendments. Imperfect they may be, but I have presented them to the Committee in order that we should think again about the balance between Parliament, government and the committee. In the light of the Government's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Consultation on order setting or amending target percentages]:
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Setting of carbon budgets for budgetary periods]:

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Clause 8, page 4, line 44, leave out "with a view to meeting" and insert "to meet"

Lord Teverson: This is a small and straightforward amendment, but it goes to the core of the Bill. All Members of this Committee have said that this is a strategically important Bill, yet this clause, which covers such a core area as setting carbon budgets for the budgetary period, states that the carbon budget for a period must be set,
	"with a view to meeting",
	the targets in the Bill. That is a contradiction and completely undersells the importance of the targets. My amendment would simply remove,
	"with a view to meeting",
	so that the clause clearly states that the budget must meet the targets. It is an obvious point. I have managed reasonably well to elucidate all the complicated points that I have gone through in the past; on this one, I have completely failed. The clause needs to state that the budget should meet the targets and not have "a view to" meeting them. The current drafting undersells the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that the Government would agree with that. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We were interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, explain the amendment. It would change the text of the Bill so that where it states:
	"The carbon budget for a period must be set with a view to meeting",
	it would state:
	"The carbon budget for a period must be set to meet".
	It is not entirely clear how much difference that semantic change would make. It is unclear what advantage would be gained by changing the text from,
	"with a view to meeting",
	to "to meet". The only purpose of a carbon budget for a period is to provide a short-term framework that will result in lower carbon emissions. No carbon budget, except perhaps the very last, which ends in 2050, can be set to meet the 2050 target completely. All our efforts in the Bill are made with a view to meeting the 2050 target. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to the Bill, as it is difficult to conceive of the differences between a carbon budget that is set,
	"with a view to meeting",
	and a budget that is set "to meet". The amendment would do no more than add a layer of confusion, and we cannot support it.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I would dearly love to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and be very quick about it, but I shall take a few moments to give the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the time that it deserves. I understand the sentiments behind it. As he said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set every carbon budget,
	"with a view to meeting",
	the 2050 target, the target percentage range of 2020 and any target percentage range for a year after 2050.
	Budgets must be set with a view to complying with the UK's European Community and international obligations—for example, as noble Lords are aware, any international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. So there is already a statutory requirement on the Government to set budgets in such a way that the targets are met. That is the intention of the Bill.
	I agree with noble Lords that it is important that the Bill focuses on, and commits us to delivering, the overall outcome of the 2050 target, otherwise why would we all be here? However, Amendment No. 43 seeks to ensure that the levels of all carbon budgets are consistent with the targets in the Bill. That is a very specific and not just a semantic amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, the difficulty with the amendment is that it would require every budget to meet the targets in the Bill. I agree that that would not be possible. The level of the 2038 to 2042 budget, for example, cannot be set at such a level that it meets the 2050 target, as the target does not fall within the budget period. If the noble Lord accepts that as an example of a budget being unable to meet a specific target, he will accept that the amendment is unnecessary, although I fully appreciate that the sentiment behind it is to drive the policy objective of the Bill forward. I hope therefore that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I understood the Minister to say that the 2042 budget could not be set to meet the 2050 target. My immediate reaction is, "Why not?". It seems incredible that such a situation could arise, but let us suppose that we actually start to make technological change at a rate that permits meeting the 2050 target by 2040 or 2044. What is the problem, if that is the case? It still meets the 2050 target. We could probably go on from there and get even further. So I do not know why the Minister felt compelled to say that the 2044 budget, or whatever, could not actually meet the 2050 target, because patently, if it were technically possible to do so, it should be allowed to do so. If it meets the 2050 target, so what?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Lord is supporting my case, in fact. If technologies became available that could bring forward meeting the target, yes, that would be taken into account. The carbon budgets are about achieving a direction of travel and setting a trajectory towards the 2050 target. What we cannot say is that a target should be met in each budget period, because then the Climate Change Committee, the Secretary of State and all those concerned would not be able to take into account all the factors to which the noble Lord alludes.
	I support the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment. Yes, we need to drive forward the Bill's policy objectives and we want to meet these targets—but the budgets are set taking into account a number of factors, including technological developments and economic and social factors. They are set as a direction of travel and with a view, even in the very early budget periods, to meeting the 2050 target. That is the correct terminology for the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for her reply but I disagree completely. I do not wish to pursue this and I am not going to take up the Committee's time further, but the proposal clearly relates to the target in Clause 1, which is a percentage by a particular year. The percentage and the year are the target. I am merely trying to stop wishy-washy language being used and bring it down to specific language. This relates not only to a percentage but to a percentage at a date, so I see no difficulty at all with this amendment. However, this Committee has more important things to discuss, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Consultation on carbon budgets]:
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Matters to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Clause 10, page 5, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) the actual and expected effects of climate change on the environment and populations;"

The Duke of Montrose: I hardly need to emphasise that much of our position in these debates has focused thus far on putting science in the driving seat and ensuring that our targets come from an authoritative and independent committee. That is, we do not want to compromise on the overarching decisions of what needs to be done. Thus, when setting carbon budgets, it is essential that scientific knowledge about climate change, relevant technology, the economic impact of proposals, fiscal policy and some of the other issues emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury earlier in Committee come to bear on decision-making.
	However, the list of factors to be considered as it stands in the Bill is not exhaustive and ignores to some degree the very thing that we are trying to protect—the environment. When setting the budgets, proposals must be considered in terms of their broader environmental impact as well as the impact on the population that inhabits it. In our efforts to stop global warming we must avoid spoiling the very thing that we are trying to protect. We need to be sure that we do not get into a situation whereby, in our debate about policy, we are prevented from seeing the forest for the trees. The proposals for reducing carbon emissions must, therefore, be considered in light of potential impacts on the environment. I put it strongly to the Committee that carbon budgets should take into account the broader issues of sustainability and adaptation, and I hope to find support on this subject. Essentially, the impact on the environment and people should not be ignored when budgets are set. If a carbon budget were set that would mean sustaining damage to the environment in reaching it, we would be faced with a policy oxymoron and have to seek out alternatives.
	The other amendments in the group slightly shift the language of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill stipulates that a number of factors must be taken into account in relation to the Secretary of State's decisions about budgets, but we feel that this is far too narrow. Our amendments that replace "the decision" with "climate change" shift the focus to ensure that the impact of climate change on various factors such as taxation and public spending are considered. The important point about budget-setting should be not how the Secretary of State's decision will affect such factors, but how climate change will affect them. This is in line with our belief that the changing climate should be the primary factor in our decision-making. Obviously, all manner of environmental and economic considerations go into the production of a carbon budget. However, these amendments seek to ensure that climate change drives budget-setting.
	I would be the first to admit that this approach once again raises the question of what climate change is. In many ways that highlights what appears to be a great gap in the Bill. There is no definition. The purpose clauses that we discussed in the first day of Committee hinted at the issue, but only as far as temperature is concerned. "Climate change" is a nice cosy little title, but what we have is almost entirely a carbon emissions reduction Bill. Clause 10(2)(a) is more or less tacked on and thus conveys the ability to consider developing scientific knowledge.
	Only one of the clause headings in the Bill proposes a report on climate change, but only by Welsh Ministers to the Welsh Assembly. If that really is what is meant, it seems a rather solitary burden for Welsh Ministers, given that we are putting in place this high-powered, technical committee. This leads me to think that it might be appropriate at a later stage to introduce amendments to make one of the first responsibilities of the committee to produce a report on the criteria against which it thinks climate change should be judged, and on how the present climate measures up to them. It could then be asked to say, along with its periodic report on carbon emissions, how the climate is progressing and what changes, if any, have taken place. This would have the advantage of letting the rest of us see on what issues the Secretary of State would exercise his extensive Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend most strongly on this. This is one of the most important amendments, and I hope that we will get a favourable response from the Government. The Treasury press notice that accompanied the report of Sir Nicholas Stern—now our noble friend Lord Stern—stated that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5 per cent of GDP each year. The press notice went on to say that it would more likely be 20 per cent of GDP each year. Unless the climate change committee has that focus in front of it, and has taken the economic and consequential factors into account, it will not be able to set a practical target for the reduction of carbon emissions. That is why this amendment is so important.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I support the spirit of this amendment, but I have been in this House long enough to look at the small subsections. Clause 10(3) pretty well covers all the points made in this amendment. It says:
	"Nothing in this section is to be read as restricting the matters that the Secretary of State or the Committee may take into account".
	One point we always discuss in this House is the extent to which we should take provisions like that and make them explicit.
	Targets for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are strongly related to another environmental point, the question of air quality. In urban areas, that is a serious matter. Perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 people per year in the UK die prematurely as a result of poor air quality—a higher figure than anything we are likely to see in the next 20 or 30 years for those dying prematurely from the effects of extreme heatwaves or other climatic events. The Environment Agency, which is concerned with air pollution, will also be the agency concerned with monitoring the emissions that go into the calculations of climate change controls and regulations. I am sure that the department, the Environment Agency and the climate change committee will bear these points in mind. It would be extremely complex to try to put all that into the Bill. I hope the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will explain how the Government are trying to take—in the words they now use, of which I approve—a holistic approach, considering all the different factors.
	The other important point that was made by the noble Duke was on the issue of adaptation—and of course adaptation is now in the Long Title of the Bill. But again, adaptation is not going to be part of the responsibility of the climate change committee, for reasons that will be explained more fully when that comes to be debated. Some of the best policies will need to consider mitigation and adaptation together. But in order to restrict its role, the climate change committee will focus on the emission aspects of the problem, and the Secretary of State's job is to make sure that all these different and complex issues come together. The question is whether the Bill as framed meets these points, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I support Amendments Nos. 48 and 49A, although Amendments Nos. 50B, 51A and 53A are a bridge too far for me: this is a good idea that has been rather overworked. Nevertheless, it is a good idea. As the noble Lord just said, it is important that the Committee on Climate Change should take account of the impacts of climate change in thinking about the pace at which the targets should be taken forward. Climate change is important only because of its impacts on people and on the environment; otherwise, it simply exists in a vacuum. It will be vital for the committee to have before it information about the impacts of climate change as they are experienced at that time and the best possible information to anticipate what the impacts will emerge as.
	Later amendments would put in place a mechanism for the adaptation agenda similar to the one for the mitigation and target-setting agendas. If that happens, it would be important for the Committee on Climate Change to have information about these impacts in order to inform its decisions. I do not believe that it would overburden this part of the Bill simply to state that the committee needs to take account of the impacts on people and the environment as part of its deliberations. That should be right up there as a fundamental part of the committee's deliberations. The committee could then decide whether it needed to quicken the pace, toughen the effort and urge us all on because the impacts were becoming increasingly deep at any time.

Lord May of Oxford: The intention of the wording in the Bill is not inimical to that of the amendment, but I am in favour of something like the amendment because the current wording is liable to misinterpretation. Let me take one example from the suite that we are talking about. The Bill states that, among the matters to be taken into account, are,
	"economic circumstances, and in particular the likely impact of the decision"—
	rather than of climate change—
	"on the economy and ... competitiveness".
	That is exactly what the two nations that failed to sign up to Kyoto gave as their reason for not doing so. I think that the Government intend to say here that the economic circumstances must be weighed in relation to, as Stern suggests, the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the spirit behind the amendment be taken into account and that we look again at the wording in the Bill.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when I was considering the amendment, I thought about the relationship between subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 10. Presumably the reason for specifying certain matters in subsection (2) is to ensure that those are taken into account while leaving open the possibility of others being taken into account if the committee judges them at the time to be important. It seems to me entirely right and proper that we should specify now those things that we consider, at least as of now, to be the key factors in reaching decisions on the carbon budgets. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I support the underlying intention of Amendment No. 48 and would like something that reflects that intention to be incorporated into the clause. Like him, I am not certain that the existing wording is absolutely right, but I very much support the intention behind it.

Lord Rooker: This has been a useful debate. I was almost going to rest my case on the fact that my noble friend Lord Hunt read out Clause 10 (3) but that would be trite. A point that has not been made is that while subsection (2) has that list—and I will come to a discussion on that—subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State as well as the Committee on Climate Change to consider the contents of that list in making decisions. These are matters the Committee on Climate Change has to take into account when it provides its advice on the level of the carbon budgets and the Secretary of State must also take them into account in making their decisions. I will not go over the list in full. It is not a big list but it includes the economic and social contexts as well as scientific factors and the international context. We think it is a broad and comprehensive list and the Joint Committee noted that balancing existing considerations will be quite a complex task for the Government and the Committee on Climate Change, requiring both technical analysis and, of course, political judgment. We do not want to overburden the Committee on Climate Change in preparing its advice on carbon levels but it is entitled, in addition to the areas that must be taken into account by the Secretary of State, to take any other factor into account. That is what Clause 10(3) means. It is not limited; it is a free agent. We are appointing a committee of independent people and if it chooses to look at other issues, that is entirely within the scope of its remit. In some ways we agree very much with the thrust of the debate but we think we have covered the points made in our drafting of the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis: The interpretation that my noble friend puts on this is consonant with other legislation. It is not at all unusual.

Lord Rooker: It is. There are lots of committees. I am sticking to the Committee on Climate Change at the moment. It is a completely free agent; I make that absolutely clear. This Bill does not restrict the Committee on Climate Change from looking at any factor outside that list, whether social, economic, technical or political.
	We do not think that Amendment No. 48 is helpful. We believe the specific issue of decisions on the level of carbon budgets to be already adequately covered by the matter of scientific knowledge about climate change. We drafted that list to allow for very wide interpretation of its scope by both the Committee and the Secretary of State. Both the Committee and the Government are required to take climate change into account in the consideration of carbon budgets. We are not sure what value would be added by the amendment. We think the points made are adequately covered by the list. We do not want to add to the list unless some cast-iron case is brought forward, and we have not seen one at the present time. As I have said, Clause 10 (3) gives the Committee massive scope.
	Amendments Nos. 49A, 50B, 51A and 53A would adjust the focus of the matters in Clause 10 to be considered by both the Committee on Climate Change and the Government. These amendments would require the Government and the committee to consider the impact of climate change on these issues. I understand that these amendments may have been prompted by the concern that considering the impacts of the level of the budget on economic and fiscal circumstances may lead to inaction or the setting of an unambitious budget.
	I begin by emphasising that as the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a carbon budget for each period—inaction is not an option. There is no get-out for the Secretary of State in that respect because of the requirement on the office. When considering the impacts of decisions on the level of the budget on the matters listed in Clause 10, the Government and the committee will need to consider the impacts, costs and benefits of a range of levels for the carbon budget. That will ensure that the costs of the impacts of climate change will be considered alongside the costs of setting a budget at a particular level. We feel that the amendments misunderstand the intention of the provisions in Clause 10, which are the,
	"matters to be taken into account",
	and balanced by the Committee on Climate Change and the Government when providing advice and making decisions. In considering the level of the budget, it is right that the impact of such decisions on the matters in Clause 10 should also be considered.
	The committee is required to take account of,
	"scientific knowledge about climate change",
	which will include consideration of the effects of climate change. We have not been prescriptive in drafting the clause. While Ministers have a good degree of sympathy with the amendments, we genuinely believe that the way in which the clause is drafted has the desired effect. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: Can we have another go at this? I do not think that the Minister fully understands what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is aiming at. This involves looking at the problem from a different point of view. The committee is a free agent—to use the Minister's words—to look at whatever it wants, which is covered by Clause 10(3). In fact, we could delete Clause 10(2) and just revamp subsection (3) to say that the committee and the Secretary of State can take anything they like into account. There has been that usual get-out clause in lots of Bills.
	Clause 10(2) refers to particular points for the committee to take into account. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is intended to get the Committee on Climate Change and the Secretary of State to consider the consequences of not moving as fast as could be. It seems to me that Clause 10(2) is negative, whereas my noble friend's amendment is positive.
	Going back to the point that I made about the Treasury press notice and the effect on GDP, if the effect of a proposal from the Committee on Climate Change is to reduce GDP by, say, 1 per cent over five years, that is a fairly tough hair shirt. However, if the committee were to find that the consequence of not doing more would be a greater reduction in GDP, it is much easier—

Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way—

The Earl of Caithness: Please let me finish my sentence. It would be much easier for the British public who have to buy the policy to appreciate why the action has been taken.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Why does the noble Earl say that the,
	"matters to be taken into account",
	defined in subsection (2), are negative? I cannot see that at all.

The Earl of Caithness: They are negative in the sense that they are taking into account the consequence of what is being suggested by the carbon budget. The point that I am trying to make is to consider the consequences on the economy of not doing more.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I was going to intervene later on a related matter, but it has come up now. I should like to make a couple of points because I think we are talking at cross purposes. The reason for the confusion is that there is no fiscal delivery mechanism in the Bill, which I shall discuss in an amendment that we will consider at a later date. To get to 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, or whatever, there will have to be a painful fiscal tax—or whatever we call it—delivery mechanism. We have to find, at some stage, a way of getting a price tag into the Bill and some broad-brush ideas.
	There is no point in having so-called dramatic carbon budgets for the year two thousand and something or other if we have no idea about the fiscal side of the equation. If people say that we cannot be very precise about that, we are being jolly precise about the other side of the balance sheet. This must involve either tax increases—balanced with some other reductions, but with a net increase of tax in this field and maybe with some degree of hypothecation—or the allocation or purchase of tradable permits or subsidies of one sort or another. That is how the whole thing will work. These are at the heart of the action that will be very painful for many people.
	I do not see how this part of the Bill can accommodate the point that the noble Earl wishes to impart. It is a very important question, but first we must see what the price tag will be. That will be reflected in the world price of carbon, whether there is a European carbon tax, what happens to European emissions trading, and all of the rest of it. That cannot be the job of the Committee on Climate Change either; we have got to leave it for now. It is a Treasury matter and the central fiscal responsibility will be for the finance Minister at the Treasury. Hence the separate mechanism that I will propose a week on Monday in Amendment No. 182B.
	I will explain to why I am not proposing an amendment here. The central fiscal problem will arise from the fact we have a double bind with carbon. Increasingly, we have reports about shortage of reserves and exploration problems. That drives up prices on the normal supply-and-demand basis and there is very low elasticity of demand for carbon; hence home heating. You cannot suddenly turn it off without freezing to death and you cannot suddenly and easily halve overnight your car journeys.
	The tax increases of 50 per cent or so cannot be stealth taxes. They have to be explained to the public and we have to start now to explain them and their order of magnitude. The trouble otherwise will be that people will say, "You agreed on this Bill but you did not tell us what it really meant. It was a false prospectus. You didn't tell us anything about the taxation consequences—doubling the price of heating oil and so on". That is why politicians are often accused of duplicity—unless we believe that what I am saying is absolutely wrong. Well, if it is wrong, let somebody say so. If noble Lords suspect that it is correct, we had better start to get our act together. People have talked about a new politics; well, goodness gracious, the real change in politics—this is new—is that we have got to produce tax and expenditure projections over 20 or 40 years to go along with the so-called carbon budget. The word "budget" normally—if I may be pedantic and semantic for a moment, as other noble Lords have tended to be—is, in a sense, a weasel word. It tends to imply that we know something about finance when actually we do not. That is just a taster of what I think has to be in the Bill, but it cannot be in this part of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps it would be helpful if I added a further paragraph on that. If we ask ourselves how we know that the committee has taken all matters into account, I draw the Committee's attention—at the risk of delaying things, which I do not want to do—to Clause 27, which relates to the functions of the committee and its advice in connection with carbon budgets. Clause 27 will require the committee to provide the reasons for its advice on carbon budgets. It will set out how it has arrived at its conclusions and how it has weighed up the costs and benefits and the risks associated with different abatement pathways so that we in Parliament, other stakeholders and the Government can understand why that carbon budget has been recommended. Therefore, jumping forward, there is a debate to be had and I think that answers to this debate are buried away in Clause 27.

The Duke of Montrose: This has certainly been an interesting debate; it has shone a light on to this issue from many different angles. I listened with some interest to what the Minister said. I cannot accept his comments immediately but I should like to read them in slightly more detail.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who is no longer in his place, was right to draw the Committee's attention to subsection (3). The powers are there but this is one issue that we keep working away at in the Bill. The Bill contains so many open and endless powers and we simply wish to see at what stage and to what degree each power should be defined. In Amendment No. 48 we have tried to bring about a little more explanation of the matters to be taken into account by the Secretary of State and the committee.
	I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate. It was very interesting to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, from the perspective of the Environment Agency. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 49 and 49A not moved.]

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Clause 10, page 5, line 40, after "decision" insert ", whether positive or negative,"

Lord Teverson: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 to 55 but I want to talk primarily about Amendment No. 53. In many ways, this matter goes back over some of the ground that we have just discussed and, in retrospect, it may have been better to put some of these amendments in the previous group. However, although I would have supported Amendment No. 48 in principle, I do not believe that it was worded strongly enough to deal with the list of matters that have to be taken into account. I shall not go through the whole debate again but I agree entirely with the noble Duke's summing up of subsection (3). You can have a general catch-all clause at the end but a committee as important as this will always look back at its terms of reference to ensure that particular items have been taken into consideration. It might also consider others but they will not be given the same priority.
	I feel very strongly that a key area that has been left out here—in a way, it is the raison d'être of the whole Bill—is the much broader environmental question, not least biodiversity. It is an area that does not receive the degree of interest outside the scientific press that it deserves, but there are real issues concerning biodiversity—not only those of nature conservation but questions relating to crops, the way we live and the health of our national economy. That is why we believe it is essential that environmental circumstances, biodiversity, ecosystems and ecology generally should be included in the list of matters set out in the clause. As the Bill stands, they have been left out completely and that is a major omission. They have to be a part of the list because, although we have the catch-all clause, they come under an area that the committee needs to consider in particular.

Lord Rooker: I am sorry to intervene—it is a habit from the other place—because the noble Lord is moving his amendment. However, he starts off from a basis that is completely wrong. The Climate Change Bill sets up a public body which will therefore be under a statutory duty, under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to consider the purposes of conserving biodiversity. Therefore, that aspect is covered but does not show up in this Bill because it relates to other legislation. A requirement is there so I would hate the debate to start by saying that we had forgotten biodiversity. That is my point.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for that intervention, which is extremely useful. I understand that. However, I am guessing that we could probably look through other areas and say that they also had to be looked at. My point is that it is important that such a thing is listed. I accept what he has said but that area does need to be listed within this Bill because it is the core part of climate change policy. On that basis, I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Crickhowell: Like the noble Lord, I could have made my remarks on the previous group debated, but perhaps chose not to because having added a slight word of disagreement with my noble friend on the Front Bench, I did not want to do so immediately again. I turn to the emphasis put on the importance of science by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, with which I do not disagree. However, I also emphasise that within the list there are other important matters to be taken into account. In that context, I want to round-off my remarks made earlier this afternoon.
	These are not negative matters. After all, going back to Clause 8, those matters are taken in account with the object of setting a carbon budget with a view to meeting the target—in Clause 1—for 2050. The Climate Change Committee and the Secretary of State will have to have that objective clearly in mind.
	When debating the various matters that have to be taken into account, my noble friend the Duke of Montrose referred to economic, political and social circumstances and then moved on without mentioning energy policy—one of the most important factors to be taken into account and to which I referred earlier.
	I want to make what is far from being a negative point. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is not in his place, because during the second day in Committee he said he felt that the sense of urgency was beginning to seep out of our debates. I want to introduce a way of getting some urgency back, not into the debates, but into the achievement of what we are all setting out to do. That is not to set a lot of targets and prepare a lot of budgets, but to change the conditions created in the world by carbon emissions.
	I again refer briefly to a remarkable and completely relevant contribution in a book written by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and Carole Nakhle. My noble friend was saying that these issues are hugely important but the problem in trying to persuade people to do something about them—and to accept the burdens that the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, suggested were going to be put on them—is going to be quite difficult. You are being asked to do something that may be quite painful in the short term and will not produce any results until many years later.
	My noble friend Lord Howell points out that in the short term we have a potentially very serious energy crisis facing us. He therefore suggests that:
	"It ought to be possible to combine the urgent needs for energy security, as well as the urgent needs of the developing world, with the long-run fight against global warming. Together the twin goals of energy security and climate security ought to provide a truly motivating worldwide story which the prophecies of disaster some decades ahead lack the persuasive power to convey or turn into action".
	Later, he writes:
	"Harnessing these two causes—of energy security and climate security—would be to create a grand alliance, a grand unity, or at least harmony, of purpose which the world so conspicuously lacks at present".
	I shall make one final quote from the book. My noble friend writes that,
	"what is crystal clear is that, starting from here and now, long-run targets for checking further carbon growth, however 'demanding', or backed by stern-sounding laws, stand not the slimmest hope of being achieved unless they are seen as necessary to protect people and industry against violent price movements, against power cuts and supply disruption, or against more oil shocks, as the Middle East and the Islamic world continue to boil. Nor will they do much to prepare the world for, or help it adjust to, the big climate changes which are already in the pipeline, and which no amount of carbon curbing will now avert. That will require expensive adaptation on a major scale".
	I produce those quotes because I want to emphasise that it seems to me that far from being negative, some of the matters that have to be taken into account are entirely and completely positive. I hope that the Climate Change Committee and the Secretary of State will not only think of scientific knowledge about climate change and the economic and social issues which have been referred to but will pay a great deal of attention to Clause 10(2)(f), which relates to energy policy. I hope that by combining a realistic energy policy with the climate change policy they will seek to get something that is not only effective, but is also saleable to a doubtful and dubious world. In their book, my noble friend and his co-author set out a series of proposals for achieving greater energy efficiency and for saving the vast amounts waste that now occur in our oil, gas and energy supplies. They are all relevant to what we are debating in the Bill, but they are all equally relevant to dealing with the energy crisis that my noble friend fears may get much worse in the short term.
	As we go through the Bill, with all the importance that is being attached to the scientific input, I hope that those who have to implement these policies will pay as much attention to the energy issues and to the way in which, by combining those two things, we can achieve the results we all want.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene only briefly on this amendment to return to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his amendment. My noble friend intervened to draw the noble Lord's attention to the existence of legislation on these matters, but what I want to emphasise about this amendment is that if noble Lords were looking at the Bill as a member of the public might look at it and were seeking to establish what matters must be taken into account, it is important that they are defined. The responsibility that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is referring to is defined in this section. In many ways, this is presentational. The argument was not so much about an absence of these responsibilities, but about their definition being clearly identifiable in this part of the Bill. I hope that despite my noble friend's response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, he will take that matter into account before Report.

Baroness Byford: I have often raised this matter in debates. When we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—which included the biodiversity clause—I was very active in trying to persuade the Government that there were certain considerations that should be included in it. I was always clearly told that they were already in legislation. I accept the noble Lord's point. Somebody reading the Bill from outside would not necessarily think that they needed to go back and look at "X". This is an extremely important Bill. Although I understand the Minister's response—indeed, I introduced the biodiversity provision in to the CROW Act—I hope that he will consider it again.
	I would like to return to the list in front of us. I was not going to intervene but this issue has brought me back to square one. The matters to be taken into account are specifically laid down in Clause 10, subsection (3) of which states that nothing in this section may be read to restrict other matters. My question is related to previous legislation: will not the Government of the day give more priority to what is laid down in paragraphs (a) to (h), and apply a higher degree of responsibility, than to any other matters? Paragraphs (a) to (h) are clearly laid down in the Bill and surely the Government of the day will give them priority over any other matters.
	Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I have been concerned on several occasions and thought it a pity that in new legislation introducing a subject such as biodiversity, it is just accepted that this is not the way it is done. This is particularly the case with this Bill, which is so important and will, I suggest, be of interest to a wider audience than some other Bills that we have taken through the House.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend's amendment. I can understand why the Minister would make the intervention that he did because he comes from Defra, where I am sure biodiversity is always at the front of his mind. But at other departments, such as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, bio-diversity is not always at the front of people's minds. Although they have a duty to regard it, it is very low down the list of priorities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that this is presentational. It is important for that reason.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had been here for the debate on the Severn barrage introduced by my noble friend Lord Livsey, he would have heard about the worries and the balance that will have to be weighed on renewable energies. The Severn barrage particularly highlights the fact that, while it can produce 5 per cent of energy from a renewable source, there will probably be an enormous habitat loss. That will be a balance that the Secretary of State will have to weigh up, and that the committee will have to consider. If the value of biodiversity is not made explicit in the Bill, it may be easier for the Secretary of State to make a decision that might be popular with people because it will impinge less on their lifestyle than others, but will impinge much more on habitat. We must give habitat and biodiversity a fighting chance by putting them in the Bill.

Lord May of Oxford: Perhaps I may speak briefly in support of the biodiversity amendment, but first I declare an interest through past and present associations with bodies such as the WWF, the Natural History Museum, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and various others I have probably forgotten about.
	I want to make two points. There is a reason we should think about this more for our own sakes. The recent UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considered 24 categories of ecosystem services that we depend on and found that two-thirds are deteriorating, and that most of the rest are not assessable. There is also a necessarily rough assessment that suggests that the actual economic value of ecosystem services is roughly comparable to that of conventional global GDP. So there is a selfish reason.
	The second reason for thinking about biodiversity is that this Bill is all about us, about humans. We might find room in one paragraph to refer to the rest of the living world.

Earl Cathcart: We broadly agree with the spirit of these amendments, but that our way of going about it is better. Many of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, qualify the word "decision" in the list of factors that are to be considered when setting carbon budgets. His qualification indicates that the impact on fiscal matters should be assessed whether it is positive or negative, but this seems to be already implied in the Bill. If one is to consider the impact of a decision, surely it includes considering whether that impact is positive or negative.
	We have tabled Amendment No. 50A in this group, which inserts at the end of Clause 10(2)(c) the words,
	"including the benefits of reduced energy use".
	This follows the line taken in the Stern report because we want to make sure that energy usage is emphasised in this part of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of any doubt, my earlier intervention was not in any way a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it is just that old habits die hard. Because he laboured the point, I thought I would say for the information of the Committee that it is covered. I make no bones about the fact that I am sympathetic to having this in the Bill, and we will have a look at it. But—I have to say "but"—one of the golden rules that is drummed into us—into ex Ministers as well—is the strong advice of parliamentary counsel never to legislate for the same thing twice. Only legislate for an issue in one place and do not even repeat it in another piece of legislation. The fact is that once the lawyers get to work, interpretation will suffer. It is dangerous to legislate for the same thing twice. Notwithstanding that, I am more than happy to see if we can achieve greater clarity.
	Biodiversity was not raised in the earlier debate, but I know from my Q&A that it is included in one of the paragraphs. But the fact is that because of the nature of the Committee on Climate Change as a public body, like all other public bodies—although I suppose not necessarily government departments—it will have a statutory duty under Section 40 of the 2006 Act to have regard to the natural environment and rural communities. However, I am more than happy to have a look at it. I also understand the point about presentation, which is no bad thing because this has to be sold to the public. We are looking for a change of culture and changes in behaviour, so I understand the point. But I must give a warning that the advice may be not to legislate for the same thing in two places.
	I do not have much more to say because the reasons I gave in my response to the previous debate apply here. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that as the clause is drafted the Committee on Climate Change and the Secretary of State must take into account the issues listed in the Bill. I have not sought to imply that they cannot consider anything else they may choose. That is the point: this is not prescriptive. They can look at any other issue, but in guiding their initial decisions, Parliament will certainly look at those they must take into account and how they have done that. When we come to Clause 27, which I highlighted earlier, covering functions and how this is to work, we can look at the matter in more detail because the question is highly valid.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for clarifying that for me. I assumed that was the case. In some ways, that reinforces why it is so important that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is in the Bill.

Lord Rooker: That was the other part of my argument. We are very reluctant to add to the list because most of the issues raised are covered within the Bill. Indeed, I have not heard of one that is not, and have had no advice to the contrary. Biodiversity is covered in legislation elsewhere, as a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change. This is something they must do. It is the way it comes out and the way it is explained. I make the point because it says "must take into account". It also says that they can take anything else they want into account. That would not have the same force, because you could not have a checklist. They would choose to do that.
	The Government and the committee will, of course, look at the costs and benefits in the context of all factors listed there. The drafting makes that clear. Where the current provisions refer to the impact, it means the impact as a whole, which necessarily includes an assessment of both the positive and negative elements. I hope I made that clear when I was forecasting what we might debate on Clause 27, in terms of the costs, benefits and drawbacks of different suggestions and advice the committee may give. We would see the negatives as well.
	The reference in Amendments Nos. 51 and 54 are therefore superfluous. With regard to Amendment No. 55, the reference to European and international circumstances in Clause 10(2)(h) already implicitly includes the international dimension of the other factors on the list. One factor on the list impacts on others, so Amendment No. 55 is unnecessary. I have already indicated the breadth of issues that can be added, but they would not fall under the "must" category. The noble Lord specifically mentioned Amendment No. 50A, which looks at the benefits of reduced energy use. This will be considered in the context of overall economic circumstances. The committee would have to look across the economy as a whole, at the different impacts, positive and negative, of different reduction pathways. In addition, energy use will be covered by paragraph (f) on energy policy.
	A similar argument could be made about the range of environmental circumstances put forward in Amendment No. 53. Social deprivation, covered in Amendment No. 52, would be covered under "breadth of social circumstances," which is a fairly broad phrase. These issues are indeed covered. I am sure we will come back to how the committee might work and present its advice when we debate Clause 27.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for his reply and further explanation. It is still extremely important for this Bill, be that in the way it looks to the public, the climate committee or Parliament, to make some reference similar to this. This may not be the exact wording, but it needs to make some reference not only to biodiversity, but to broader ecological systems.
	I am surprised, though I clearly do not share the experience of the Minister, that legislation would apply to a body as independent as the Committee on Climate Change. However, I doubt that, for instance, at board meetings of the now defunct Strategic Rail Authority the question of biodiversity was looked at in every investment decision it made. No doubt it had a statutory obligation to do so, but I am quite certain that it never—or hardly ever—did. That is one of the reasons why this still needs to be within this Bill.
	On reflection, I tend to agree with the Minister's comments on the other amendments I put forward, but it is important that we come back to extend this list in this one important area. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 50A to 56 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets]:

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 11, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 12 and insert "Within six months of the passing of this Act,"

Lord Teverson: The amendment concerns timings and how quickly these matters should be looked at. I have tabled the amendment because I am concerned that Clause 11(1) gives the Secretary of State the ability to make an order over a broad period. However, there is urgency about this and it is good practice that there should be a time limit in the Bill. The phrase,
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable",
	is not sufficient given the importance of carbon budgets. It is important that there is a specified period of time in the Bill—

Lord Clinton-Davis: There are various ways in which this issue can be approached; for instance, by questions and by debate. Why should it be included in the Bill in the way suggested now?

Lord Teverson: The clause is very open. This matter could indeed be dealt with in all kinds of ways, but there needs to be a specific point at which the Secretary of State has to lay the report before the Parliament. The amendment suggests a reasonable time limit of six months. We do not believe that that would be unduly onerous on government or the Secretary of State. The time limit should be specified in the Bill, otherwise there will be a temptation to put it off. All organisations, government departments and individuals work better if they are accountable to deadlines; hence it is quite correct and proper that there should be a specific time period by which these orders need to be laid before Parliament, and we suggest that six months is a reasonable period. On that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: Surely there is an even stronger reason for the time limit to be included, which will be contained in the next group of amendments to be moved by my noble friend. The budgets will be without much meaning unless there is a strategy as to how they are to be produced. It cannot therefore just be left to the parliamentary question or the possibility of debate. If we are going to have budgets, we must have a strategy, and it must be reported on and presented to Parliament very quickly.

The Duke of Montrose: We fully support measures to make sure that carbon budgets and proposals are set quickly and efficiently, but we are not convinced that the amendment achieves that aim. The subsection in question seems to relate to all orders that set budgets. We welcome the idea that the budgets be set as soon as possible, but mandating the Secretary of State to lay down a report that outlines all the budgets for the next 43 years in the six months after Royal Assent seems completely to alter the purpose of the clause.
	As I understand it, the clause attempts to ensure that reporting mechanisms are in place every time a budget is set but not necessarily to fix and place permanently all budgets for the next four decades. The amendment lacks clarity. As our knowledge of climate change improves, so will our ability to set and amend budgetary periods. It is important that we have a dynamic process to address these issues. Likewise, it is important that this place responds in an open and democratic way every time that it happens. Reports to Parliament on budgets and budgetary periods are important, but they need to be strengthened, and we have tabled amendments to that effect.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I share the reservations of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, about the amendment. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that what is in the clause is not a very open position. The legal requirement to publish a report as soon as reasonably practicable is very far from being open; it is a strong requirement. It means that we must publish the report as soon as we possibly can. If we could not convince the courts, should the matter go that far, that we had complied with the clause in these terms, the Government would be at fault.
	As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, indicated, the budgets involve great complexity. That is why we need the phrase in the clause. Policies to meet budgets are likely to cut across a wide range of issues. The Government must allow time for the Committee on Climate Change to provide its significant advice on carbon budgets and we have to consult the devolved Administrations before bringing forward the necessary instrument for parliamentary approval. That is a pretty demanding schedule. Setting a specific deadline would therefore impose a great restriction on processes when we are seeking the contributions of other significant institutions.
	As my noble friend Lady Morgan previously mentioned, we are discussing the timing of the Committee on Climate Change's advice on both the first three budgets and the 2050 target with the shadow secretariat to the committee. After those discussions we may be able to come forward with an amendment that provides a potential timetable on giving due effect to the legislation. We all share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there not be undue delay. However, the phrase,
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable"
	does not countenance delay; it merely avoids our having to accept, as the amendment would have us do, an absolutely rigid timeframe within which all consultation would have to be completed.
	I therefore hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have an open mind on this consultation process and on how long it will take. We are taking intelligent steps to move as rapidly as we can, but it would not be right to introduce into the legislation an absolutely rigid timetable that might severely affect the quality of the consultation that we could have with those whom we need to consult. On that basis, with the assurance that we are looking at the matter with seriousness, I hope that the noble Lord will feel confident in withdrawing his amendment.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for his reply and for some comfort that he may understand the need for discipline here. If someone asked me to do something as soon as was reasonably practicable, I would probably put it off until next year. While that may not be a legal interpretation of the responsibility on the Secretary of State, it is important that there is a form of timetable that is rather more onerous in this important area—and I mean onerous—than there is in the Bill at the moment. However, I accept the Minister's assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 13, leave out "report setting out" and insert "detailed strategy setting out the measures,"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 64. We continue to debate Clause 11, as this part of the Bill puts a duty on the Secretary of State to put together a report setting out proposals and policies for meeting the carbon budgets and we feel that, as it stands, the proposal is not robust enough. Our amendment changes the wording slightly but increases the impact. It is not enough that the climate change committee puts together proposals and policy recommendations from which a Minister can pick and choose. We on these Benches want more than a report; we want a detailed strategy outlining the measures that are to be taken, which is part of our more general attempt to beef up the role of the climate change committee.
	Members of the Committee will appreciate that this is an important change in terms of increasing the role of the climate change committee. At the heart of the relationship between the committee and the Government is the kind of advice that will be passed between them. We want to ensure that the reports on policy are not merely suggestions. Of course, we are leaving the implementation of the policies in the hands of the Minister, as that is the only way in which the climate change committee can effect change. However, we feel that it is important that the strategy that he or she implements comes from the experts and that the committee be encouraged to produce a detailed plan on the ways in which carbon emissions can be reduced and climate change stemmed. This will make it easier for the committee and others to come to an independent view on whether the policies are sufficient to meet future budgets and to help monitor progress towards the budget as time passes. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene briefly to speak tangentially to the amendment, as this offers me a peg to put a thought into my noble friend's mind.
	A very interesting committee, the Quadripartite Committee, has been established in the other place. It draws on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and the Overseas Development Committee and deals with issues of defence sales. Some say that it has not been successful in the sense that it has not been able to secure the required level of accountability, but it was what I had in mind some years ago when I was pushing the idea of a defence exports scrutiny committee. If the mechanisms in the House of Commons are correctly constructed, you can get a forum for accountability that does not meet like a Select Committee—weekly, two-weekly or whatever—but at the right time to take evidence on issues when something has happened and where the view of Parliament should at least be in the mind of Ministers and others when decisions are taken.
	I just wonder whether climate change as an issue should not necessarily be left to a committee such as the environmental protection committee. The issue would be only one item on its many agendas but it would obviously be a critical one. Perhaps a structure will be established in Parliament—possibly a Joint Committee arrangement; I do not know—that parallels that sort of quadripartite reporting mechanism in order to deal with developments in this area as they make their way through departments.
	I should think that that is a way of communicating on issues such as targets for action, what is going to happen and what action is being taken, as a mechanism for ensuring that Parliament is kept informed during this whole process. As I say, the body would not meet weekly or bi-weekly as Select Committees in the House of Commons do but would be like the Quadripartite Committee and meet when necessary. It would not have to be defined in legislation; it would not have to be defined in legislation at all. However, it could be something that the department itself wanted to sponsor as a way of dealing with these problems. I ask the Committee to forgive me for using this amendment as the peg for raising the issue.

Lord Crickhowell: I strongly support my noble friend's amendment for the reasons that I indicated when I spoke briefly in the previous discussion on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It seems extremely important to spell out a strategy on how these matters are to be dealt with. I am pretty confident that the Minister, in response to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will say, "That is absolutely nothing to do with us in this House or with the Government; it is a matter that will be decided by the other place".
	As for whether there will be a separate committee, I would have thought, given my experience of working, for example, on the European Union Committee's sub-committee on foreign affairs and defence, that if a strategy paper were to be presented to Parliament, it would not be lost as a single item to be dealt with in a great batch. An appropriate House of Lords committee would almost certainly decide that it was exactly the kind of topic on which it should devote a day to cross-examining witnesses. Without going down the road of inventing parliamentary procedure, a matter which is not for us, my noble friend's amendment would by its very nature produce exactly the kind of examination that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wants.

Lord Oxburgh: Neither Clause 11 in its present form nor the amendment quite captures the fact that you can have much more detailed plans for carbon budgets or whatever for the next five years than can be planned 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ahead. I am therefore not entirely happy with the proposal that these budgets should be detailed. I suggest that when this clause comes back it should recognise the difference in detail that can be offered for different stages. This goes back to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, withdrew. I think that he was trying to provide for a relatively quick response for the immediate future, for the first five years. What will happen in 10 or 15 years can be a matter for much more deliberation. I hope that it will be possible to incorporate some of these ideas in a revised clause.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: I was going to make almost exactly the same point as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, just made. It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said a few minutes ago, this is a fundamental part of the Bill. Unless there are proper policies and a proper strategy to meet the budget, it will not amount to very much. It is hugely important to get the timing right. I rather like the six-month proposal for the first part of the period but think that it would be entirely unreasonable to expect reports for future periods to be produced in six months. A certain unbundling of the clause may be needed to reflect these different time horizons.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the last two noble Lords who spoke because they represented the Government's thinking on this matter. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that he has done the Committee a service by raising the issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with his previous amendment. We will certainly look at whether more detail should be provided than is currently provided for in Clause 11. I assure the noble Lords that their thinking is very much the Government's thinking on this.
	Perhaps I may deal first with the extraneous matter. I had a wonderful experience over the weekend watching that great film "The Kite Runner", but I did not think that I would be involved in flying kites this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has flown one of the more obvious kites and I will neither cut it down nor respond to it except to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, that the safest position to adopt is to point out that this is nothing to do with the Government or with this place but is for the other place. My noble friend is always ingenious. He has tagged his proposal on to this amendment and he deserves a response.
	I can only assure my noble friend that both Ministers on this Bench, particularly the senior one, were alert and listened carefully to what he said. He has firmly registered the point with the Government and we will see what needs to be done. However, I am with him on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, indicated in his contribution. We all recognise that Parliament has a very important role to play in this and it would be helpful if considerable thought was paid to the mechanisms by which that is done. I am grateful to my noble friend for his kite-flying.
	I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the report required under Clause 11 will already have high status. As it will set out the proposals and policies that the Government intend to implement on carbon budgets, it is an important report. However, I am not clear that calling the report a strategy or requiring that it contain measures in addition to proposals and policies will change its nature very much.
	There is also the obvious problem that calling it a "climate change strategy" could be somewhat misleading. After all, this report will be concerned only with mitigation—measures to reduce emissions. It will not cover the crucial issue of adaptation to climate change. That is the subject of Clause 49 which appears later in the Bill. Although the Government are not oblivious to the important points which the noble Lord makes about the necessity for strategy, this is not the appropriate clause for it because this report is more narrowly defined to deal with the more narrowly defined issues.
	The noble Lord has raised an important topic and we will have a chance to discuss it much more fully when we reach Clause 49. As he will also recognise in my response to the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Jay, our minds are very far from closed on the level of detail required. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for that response. Words mean everything and nothing, really. I suppose that the difference between "report" and "strategy" is that "report" tends to be retrospective while "strategy" is looking forward. The whole thrust of this Bill is about the need to look forward to see what we do next. We need to report and to know where we are, but we also need—and this is the point of these amendments—to place centre stage the notion that we require methods for addressing the issues and a course of action that is clearly stated by the climate change committee and available to the Government. As I said, we need more than just suggestions and I hope that that will run through all the Government's thinking on this. The Committee on Climate Change is not just a suggestion box. It exists to provide the thrust of the argument that the Government will then use to implement policy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised an interesting point in his kite flying, which, although not strictly speaking part of these amendments, goes to the heart of what I suspect Parliament's response will need to be. I would like, as I am sure we all would, Parliament to play an active role in following this Bill through to the Committee on Climate Change's activities and the Government's responses. I am sure that Parliament will find vehicles for doing that, not just in another place but here, too. Indeed, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill has been one of its strengths. If these debates have resonance, it is because there is a cadre of Members speaking in Committee who have great experience of the Bill through the time that they spent on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam; they have brought that knowledge to our debates, which has been very useful. I would like to think that post-legislative scrutiny will be equally important to the parliamentary process. I keep on about these three things: Parliament, the Government and the Committee on Climate Change. This Bill can be effective only if all three feel that they have bought into the process. However, having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Baroness Hayman: Is Amendment No. 60 not moved? Are we sure?

The Earl of Caithness: I think that my noble friend might want to move this amendment.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must implement the climate change strategy."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am sorry. I hope that I can be forgiven for losing myself in all the papers that I have here.

Lord Teverson: Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord that I understand his problem.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Indeed. Perhaps I should have taken more time.
	This is all part and parcel of the debate that we have just had. The last group of amendments would have required the Committee on Climate Change to publish a detailed climate change strategy and these amendments would require the Secretary of State to implement the strategy. We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State buys into the strategy that the committee has produced.
	This is another attempt by us on these Benches to cut out the politics surrounding the efforts to stop climate change. Without a duty to implement, it would not matter what sort of advice or strategy the Secretary of State received. There would be room for political manoeuvring at the expense of progress. I am immensely sceptical of the spaces in the Bill that will allow political decisions to nullify scientific conclusions with inaction. We need a duty to implement the strategy that the committee presents to the Minister. Placing that duty on the Secretary of State would be consistent with the approach taken in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which in Section 2(1) places a duty on Ministers,
	"to prepare and publish ... a strategy setting out the ... policies for ensuring ... that as far as reasonably practicable persons do not live in fuel poverty".
	Section 2(5) requires that Ministers,
	"shall take such steps as are in",
	their,
	"opinion necessary to implement the strategy".
	There is consistency here with previous legislation.
	Although it could be argued that the Secretary of State is already under a duty to meet the budget and so will have to implement the policies and proposals in the report, closing this loophole would ensure that the policies and proposals put forward are the ones implemented, rather than a different set of policies that the Secretary of State may decide suits him better. This is important in monitoring Ministers' progress towards meeting the budgets. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend, who has said what I was going to say on my Amendment No. 64A, which is grouped with this amendment. The wording that I have used is similar to that quoted by my noble friend and would have almost the same effect. I based mine on Section 2(5) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, so I will not repeat what he said. It seems ludicrous that, having presented a report under Clause 11, the Secretary of State has no duty to implement it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My intervention will be modest, technical and brief. I in no way disagree with my noble friends on the Front Bench or with my noble friend Lord Caithness on the spirit of their amendments. I have to confess to an ignorance, which has existed on my part for 30 years in Parliament, as to whether there is any relationship between the wording of the clause and the title of the clause. Clause 11 has the title, "Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets", which does not seem to me immediately to include the words that my noble friends want to put in the Bill. I have no objection to there being a new Clause 12, if I am right in my supposition. However, if my supposition is entirely incorrect, I apologise to my noble friends for not having discussed this with them before I came into the Chamber.

The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend's dilemma would be solved if the Government accepted the amendment and altered the preamble to the clause at line 10.

Lord Rooker: The way in which Bills are drafted changed some time ago. Clause titles always used to be set at the side in about a three-point font so that you could hardly read them. I was always told, "You can ignore them. They're of no consequence whatever in terms of the legalities". That probably goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's point.
	In my short note in response to the amendment, I have an absolute gem of a sentence, which I am determined to put on the record, but first I have one point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. The Clause 11 report is drafted by the Government, not the committee. There should be no misunderstanding about that. The legal duty to meet each budget, which we discussed at an earlier sitting, provides a strong motivation to deliver the proposals and policies. I think that that was one of our very first debates, on line 1 or 2 of Clause 1 of the Bill. In addition, there will be regular progress reports by the Committee on Climate Change to Parliament under Clause 28. I am sorry to refer to these later clauses, but they set out in some detail the operation of the Committee on Climate Change.
	Here is the gem. A legal duty to implement the proposals and policies would be highly unusual in legal terms. Ministers can say all they like about implementation, but a legal duty—this is what my note says—would be highly unusual in legal terms. On another point, the amendment would be very restrictive. If the Government were unable to implement one element of the plan—through, say, unforeseen events—they would be in breach of the law. The same problem would apply if evidence came forward supporting a change in policy approach. It is not intended—this is not to demean the Bill at all—that the programme should be drafted as a legal document. It is therefore likely that any duty to implement would raise questions about precisely what the duty is and what needs to be done in order to fulfil it, and it would be very difficult to determine whether the duty had actually been fulfilled. Legal duties need to be set out in a way that shows precision and inflexibility. We do not want the proposals and policies to be drafted in this way. We want them to be understood and informative to the public. This goes back to the point my noble friend made about presentation.

Lord Crickhowell: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does not what he has just said apply exactly and precisely to line 1 of Clause 1 of the Bill, which seeks to impose a legal duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for 2050 is at least 60 per cent lower than the 1990 baseline? As I propose to come back to this matter at Report, I will gratefully accept the gem that the Minister has produced and I promise him that I will produce it again.

Lord Rooker: I was conscious as I made that point that I had got the line wrong—it is line 5 but it is the first line of the first clause the way the Bill is drafted—but it was a slightly different argument that was being advanced. That line was drafted so as to send a signal to the Civil Service; the noble Lord knows how the culture of Whitehall works. That is what Clause 1, line 1 is intended to do but, with respect, this is a slightly different issue. The duty to implement would create a risk that a Government might choose to limit the policies included in the report in order to avoid a requirement to implement those policies. This could create a barrier to transparent and ambitious policy-making.
	A further point, and one that I hope will appeal to your Lordships, is that a duty to implement a plan could be seen as a very broad enabling power for the Government to carry out any actions they proposed through the plan. I have no doubt the Delegated Powers Committee will have a look at that. I only say it "could" be seen to be a very broad enabling power. I do not think a power of that breadth would win the support of your Lordships' House.
	I turn to Amendment No. 64A. I appreciate the proposed duty,
	"to take reasonable steps to implement".
	The proposals and policies may be intended to provide greater flexibility rather than a simple duty to implement but we think the Bill takes the right approach—Ministers always say that—in focusing the legal duty on the outcome. It is the outcome not the process that is important and that the Government need to be challenged by. Rather than arguing about the means of achieving the budget we need to know that the outcome has been achieved. This ensures that we can take a forward-looking approach to policy-making and avoid being restricted to policies originally set out in the Clause 11 report when a change in approach since that report might deliver more effective emission-saving. In other words, there has to be a degree of flexibility. If we set this out in a highly restrictive fashion, which is what the initial Amendment No. 60 would do, that would have the exact opposite effect to what your Lordships are seeking to achieve. I note the caveat that this goes back to Clause 1. At Report I am going to better delineate the arguments on Clause 1 and Clause 11.

Baroness Byford: I would like to support my noble friend's amendment but I am getting quite concerned by the Minister's response. We are in Committee but we nearly seem to be backing off from making sure that what we are trying to do happens. That worries me excessively. Can the noble Lord point me to a part in the Bill as it stands which would allay these fears? I really am quite concerned that unless implementation is grabbed fully we will not succeed with this Bill in the way we want to.

Lord Rooker: If the noble Baroness is asking for the Bill to be so prescriptive that policy-making gets interfered with and is not practical, she is not going to achieve her objectives.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My noble friend Lady Byford perhaps sought to address the point that it is quite difficult, when considering legislation in this way—with dialogue between the Government and the Opposition leading, I hope, to positive developments—to pin things down. A lot is going to depend—this is the implication behind the noble Baroness's intervention—on the Government's response at Report; we hope that the Government really have been listening. I have been listening to the gems—it has been a bit like being in Aladdin's cave: the gem from the Minister and the beautiful, sparkling gem from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about legality. This is truly a different Bill and it imposes legal restraints.
	I return to the previous set of amendments because in some ways it is more important that there is a clearly determined strategy in the public domain that is clear and part and parcel of the discussions. It is obvious to all of us that Governments are going to seek to implement a strategy. If they do not, they will be shown to have failed. So the publication of the strategy is probably more important than the legal duty to implement it. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) The proposals and policies set out in the report in subsection (1) must be consistent with achieving sustainable development and must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of—
	(a) society, including the health, wealth and well-being of the population;(b) the environment, including biodiversity, living organisms and the ecological systems of which they form part and natural resources; or(c) the economy."

Earl Cathcart: As this Committee certainly appreciates, stopping the negative effects on the environment is not strictly tied to carbon emissions. Just as global warming is a global problem, so too could be the ways in which we combat climate change. Perhaps more aptly, if we are trying to stop the effects of climate change on the environment, we must ensure that our efforts to stop climate change through reducing carbon emissions do not negatively impact precisely on what we are trying to preserve. We do not want to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
	This amendment seeks to situate our efforts to stop climate change in a broader context. It is essential that we have regard to the populations and societies we are trying to protect. Likewise, the natural world and biodiversity should not be sacrificed. This might seem like an obvious point. No one in this House would advocate building a clean power station if it meant wiping out species of wildlife or causing serious health concerns to neighbouring residents. However, it is important that we have this proviso in the law to ensure our efforts to make this country and the planet greener do not backfire by lacking the scope to deal with all the effects of climate change. For example, biofuels are doubtless part of the solution to climate change because crops can absorb carbon from the atmosphere while growing and then be released into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. This cycle might mean no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
	However, growing biofuel demand has led to widespread clearance of rainforest to plant fuel crops. The carbon released from the clearance of rainforests can be enormous. It is not much use if the UK claims to have cut millions of tonnes of carbon emissions by increased burning of biofuel if the country that has produced that fuel increased its carbon emissions by more than that. The sustainable development test would pick that up in a way in which the Bill's budgets currently may not, as well as identifying problems of biodiversity loss, displacement of communities, and so on, that are also associated with rainforest clearance.
	Finally I draw attention to paragraph (c) of the amendment requiring sustainable development to have regard to "the economy". If we are to combat climate change it will require a serious change in our economic culture. The proposals and policies produced by the Committee on Climate Change should have regard to the ways in which economic development can be made more sustainable, and also the ways in which sustainable development might affect the economy. The stakes are too high to risk economically impractical solutions that might detract from our ability to make further inroads against carbon emissions in the future. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am concerned about this amendment; it worries me. The noble Earl will know that I have sought to be objective throughout the Bill's proceedings, but he referred to "regard to". The amendment refers specifically to "damage to". I wonder whether the lawyers might make more than a few bob out of this amendment in the event that it is included in the Bill.
	I shall get back to the basics of the amendment in relation to two terms—"wealth" and "the economy". The amendment states that the proposals,
	"must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to ... wealth and"—
	in proposed new paragraph (c)—"the economy".
	Some private property may lose value as we implement a policy on climate change. Certain types of private residences, in comparison with other movements in the housing market, might be at a disadvantage because of the nature of their construction. Certain types of businesses owned by individuals, which would come under the general heading of "wealth", might be affected by the implementation of this policy and would obviously lose out.
	On the wider issue of the economy, what is meant by "economy"? We have many economists among us today and perhaps my noble friend will get up and embroider the case that I make, with his knowledge of economics. As I understand the economy, it is about activity in industry, so what about the power generation industry? It may well lose a lot of business as a result of the inclusion of such an amendment. It may decide that it wants to go to law to prevent the implementation of a particular policy because it damages its interests, citing the inclusion of "economy" in the amendment.
	What about other industries involving building materials, supplies, heating, some white goods or freight transport? They are all part of the national economy and may well argue that they are being damaged, yet the law will protect them if the amendment is included. The law will refer specifically to,
	"damage to, or deterioration of",
	their interests.
	I think that the Opposition have gone a little too far with this amendment, and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

Lord Crickhowell: I was going to generally support my noble friend's amendment for two reasons, but I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has raised legitimate concerns about the wording which must be looked at carefully again before the next stage of the Bill. Without elaborating on "the economy", what he said about "wealth" raised a number of issues that need further consideration.
	I looked rather sympathetically at the amendment initially because of proposed new paragraph (b), for much the same reason expressed in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who referred to the Severn barrage. I was not present for that debate; I was in Moscow at the time with the sub-committee of this House, but I raised exactly those issues in the debate on the Queen's Speech. It is a very good example of how, if we are going to go down this road, we have to look carefully at the consequences of biodiversity on ecological systems.
	Equally I am sympathetic to what my noble friend said about the wrong use of biofuels. There are a lot of extremely good examples showing the sensible use of biofuels, notably in Brazil where extraordinary progress has been made using sugar to almost eliminate the need for ordinary sources of motor fuels, and so on. We also see other cases where rain forests and so on are being destroyed.
	There is a lot in the amendment deserving support, and this is one of the many issues raised during today's debate. Important questions have been raised, which we will need to consider carefully on Report. There are good things about the amendment that I wholly support, but one or two matters on the precise wording must be dealt with before we go much further.

Lord Teverson: I think that I understand the reasoning, purpose and motivation behind the amendment, but if we read it strictly it could become a climate sceptic's charter, as it states that it,
	"must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of ...the economy".
	If I were of a climate sceptic bent, I would use that provision as far as I could legally to neuter everything that is trying to be achieved. That is the risk of the amendment. I clearly applaud the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who tabled the amendment for bringing biodiversity to the fore but, in a different context earlier, my amendment was about taking it into consideration and then weighing it up.
	In this broader area of risk, particularly in terms of ecology, we are talking about precautionary principles, and it immediately becomes extremely conservative in terms of its interpretation. The amendment as drafted could undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, so it requires considerable rethinking.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wonder whether I could suggest a way forward, as I have probably managed to insert more sustainable development duties into Bills as they proceed than any other Peer in the land. For the past 10 years, any time I have spotted a Bill when someone ought to have a duty for sustainable development, we have tried to include it. Latterly the Government have been excellent in forestalling that by putting in those duties in a variety of settings.
	It is important to set the climate change activity in this broader context of sustainable development. Climate change is an important and urgent issue, which will become even more important and urgent as it bites. The risk at the moment is that it can be seen as trumping all other considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, referred to the debate on the Severn barrage. I hesitate to summarise what the Minister said on that day in a rather crass way. It was as if that amount of renewable energy justified any environmental damage by way of collateral damage, as it were. Though the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said that no one in their right mind would propose a power station that damaged biodiversity, I hate to say that the Government are now spending tens of millions on feasibility studies on the Severn barrage to do just that. We have to get clarity on where the climate change effort needs to take place in that setting of sustainable development. This may not be the right amendment. It is open to being hijacked, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others say. The solution to this is to insert a sustainable development requirement, as indeed we have done in many Bills for many functions and for many public bodies in the past, but never for the Government as a whole as this Bill would require.
	The Minister may leap to his feet and pull a Bill out of his back pocket of which I am unaware that lays a sustainable development duty on the Government that would apply in this circumstance. If that is the case, I am even more joyful about the last 10 years; but I suspect that he will not. Simply to say that the reporting required by the Government in this clause should be required to take account of sustainable development—the broad wording in many Bills—would help to make sure of it, and provide a gentle prompt to government over many years about the fact that, no matter how pressing climate change becomes, if we solve it by creating other environmental, social or economic problems, we simply will not hit the mark.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment of my noble friend in one sense, but in another sense it is the right amendment with the wrong words in it. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion for the debate we have had. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly of course, raised the impossibility of getting through to a solution in 2050 without somebody, somewhere, being damaged. The essence of the action required over the coming 40 years if we are to meet the 2050 target means an immense number of changes in society—in the economy, in our structure, in the way we source our energy, and so on. That depth of change is not going to occur without some people somewhere losing money. At the same time it is equally certain that the change will introduce huge opportunities for gain. We live in this market economy and, whatever we do, we are not going to escape from that. That means things going up and things going down. We all have to accept that.
	The way the amendment is worded would inhibit the flexibility of a market system. We cannot afford that. That very flexibility will be one of the great things that will make the change possible. Some interventions in the market will be required by government to produce the desired effects. That seems almost inevitable. At the same time, we need to keep this thought very much in mind in the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord May, introduced it earlier this evening and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, reintroduced it—but we must not do it in such a way that it might inhibit necessary action and, more importantly, necessary change if we are to arrive at a destination in 2050.

Lord Rooker: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I say that in my back pocket is Clause 49, the programme for adaptation to climate change. Subsection (2) states:
	"The objectives, proposals and policies must be such as to contribute to sustainable development".
	I say that because we are dealing with Clause 11 on the budgets at the moment. I am not saying that it meets the point related to this but, so far as the Bill is concerned, where we have looked at the various aspects, it is in terms of the adaptation policies that we have actually—

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I very much welcome the noble Lord pointing that out. All I ask is for that provision to be put in the mitigation part of the Bill as well as the adaptation part of it.

Lord Rooker: It was not in that part, but it was elsewhere. I do not want anyone to get the impression that sustainable development is not mentioned in the Bill. It is, in Clause 49, quite deliberately in the adaptation programme. There is no such requirement in Clause 11 and I am not sure whether that was raised before the Joint Committee, but we are strongly committed to promoting sustainable development and protecting and improving the environment. I am not so up to date. There have been several references to the Severn barrage. I do not think I dealt with the debate or was the Minister who gave the crass answer. It was obviously one of my colleagues. I am not going to get involved in that.
	All new policies are subject to an impact assessment which includes consideration of the principles of sustainable development and must take into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. At present, all UK government departments are signed up to the 2005 sustainable development strategy. All departments publish a sustainable development action plan. The new cross-government public service agreements aim to ensure that all relevant departments have clear roles and responsibilities with respect to the important policy areas, so they are given full consideration in the policy-making process. The public service agreements are in place for climate change and the natural environment. We also of course ask the Sustainable Development Commission to act as an adviser, advocate and watchdog and to report publicly on the Government's performance on sustainable development, and to help build capacity to deal with sustainable development issues. So we do not think in the round that it is necessary to place an additional sustainable development requirement on the policies and proposals report. That is not to say it can be ignored. The concentration is in the other part of the Bill—adaptation rather than mitigation—in terms of the actual words.

Lord Crickhowell: The Minister said that he was not sure what the Joint Committee on the draft Bill had said on this matter. It addressed this issue in the context of such things as wind farms and tidal barrages, and came to a very clear conclusion. We recommend that impacts on the environment, especially biodiversity, be added to the list of factors which the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change must take into account. The Joint Committee was not confining that recommendation to the section of the Bill dealing with adaptation.

Earl Cathcart: I thought that I was going to be clean-bowled with the one contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but he has legitimate concerns and I take those on board. The purpose was to protect society and the economy as a whole and not individual areas. I was very grateful for some support from various contributors for what we were trying to achieve in including sustainable development in the Bill. This may not have been exactly the right amendment; it may have its shortcomings. The wording may be wrong or ambiguous and open to difficulties later, but I hope that the Committee feels that our heart was in the right place when we produced it and tried to include sustainable development.
	I was going to ask the Minister whether he would consider including sustainable development in the Bill when, out of his back pocket, he produced Clause 49. Therefore, the matter has been considered and that is good news. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Clause 11, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) The authorities referred to in subsection (2) shall be under a duty to cooperate with the Secretary of State in the preparation of the report."

The Duke of Montrose: Amendment No. 63 concerns a matter that was raised with me by the Scottish Law Society. I return to the question raised earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour regarding the problems that arise when power over the environment issue is, to a considerable extent, devolved to various national authorities and in various ways. I accept that Clause 67(2) contains a general power which says that functions are to be exercised by all the authorities jointly. However, part of the question behind the amendment is whether that clause contains sufficient powers to draw all the contributing elements together.
	We also return to the time that it will take for the Secretary of State to produce this report on policies and proposals. Obviously the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change will have talked to the devolved Administrations in setting the carbon budgets, but it may still be possible for a devolved Administration to drag its heels as all approach the final hurdle of agreeing the division of the proposals. One can almost see an element of horse-trading coming up here.
	It will be very important for the Bill to make everyone accept their responsibilities. The problems are many. Even if there can be agreement from all national authorities on the framework of the Bill, the carbon budgets set in Westminster will have effects on the local operations of Governments across the union. Let us consider the emissions produced by cars. Cutting automobile carbon emissions involves local changes in traffic patterns, road pricing or improving public transport.
	I should also like to ask the Minister for clarification on how precisely he sees the national authorities working with the Secretary of State. Although Scotland has decided to have its own climate change Bill and there is much support for attempts to stop global warming, it appears that a duty is not necessarily placed on the devolved Administrations to implement the policies or strategies of the Committee on Climate Change or those of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: For once, I disagree with my noble friend. For better or worse, we have devolution. I was not in favour of it and I still do not think that it is a great idea, and I think that the harvest from it is yet to be reaped in full. However, having got devolution, one must accept that countries such as Scotland can do their own thing. My noble friend and I are very fortunate that the home information pack is voluntary in Scotland, whereas it is compulsory in England. It is of great benefit to us in Scotland to have different law. Scotland will bring in its own climate change Bill and it may do things slightly differently from the way they are done in England. However, having got devolution, I think that the devolved Administrations should be given the flexibility to act. Certain things might be done better in Scotland than in England and certain things might be done worse, but that is a problem with devolution. Therefore, asking for a duty to be placed on the authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State will go against the spirit and the whole point of the devolution legislation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has expressed things in precisely the same terms as I would be likely to express them from this Dispatch Box. We have devolved Administrations and they must exercise their responsibilities, but of course we are assured that each devolved Administration in the UK is committed to tackling climate change. The Secretary of State is responsible for meeting the targets and budgets in the Bill, but the report on policies and proposals must be developed in consultation with the devolved Administrations, as is their right, bearing in mind that this is a UK Bill. It is essential that it is a UK Bill because the UK has to operate in the international arena as an entity. However, some areas of climate change policy are devolved, and we respect that, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, properly pointed out that we should.
	The proposals and policies required under this clause will clearly set out what measures each devolved Administration intends to take to reduce emissions in areas of its responsibility. We have agreed this approach with the devolved Administrations and believe that it represents a fair way forward. We are also developing a more detailed concordat with the devolved Administrations, which will set out how we work together with them to meet the Bill's requirements. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that our efforts are properly co-ordinated, as opposed to seeking to impose on them a statutory duty to co-operate.
	I reiterate that all the devolved Administrations are fully committed to this process. We have enjoyed very constructive discussions with them and are grateful to them for their co-operation so far. I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have both recently approved legislative consent Motions to this Bill, and we expect to build on this constructive process.
	It is right that the Bill is focused on the UK level, given the highly integrated nature of the UK economy and our energy system. Clause 11 already requires that the report, including the contribution of the devolved Administrations, be laid before Parliament, so there will be full transparency about what the Government, together with the devolved Administrations, intend to do to reduce emissions and meet the budget.
	I hope that the noble Duke will feel reassured by the Government's response and suitably chastened by his Back-Bench contribution to the extent that he will recognise the proper role of the devolved Administrations in this matter. At the same time, I hope that he will appreciate that this is a UK Bill with UK targets to be hit and that we will achieve that through the transparent process of consultation with the devolved Administrations, as we are obliged to do. I hope that the noble Duke is reassured and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: I am afraid that I do not feel able to go along with the Minister one bit. Here, I am drawing to the Committee's attention the anomalies that we face in the Bill. We have given devolution to various national or sub-national authorities—however one wishes to put it—but, at the same time, this is currently a UK Bill. There is a possible way for the Government to get around that. If they can agree the policies and proposals at the same time as setting the budgets, then, when they come forward with the carbon budgets, the policies and proposals will be agreed ahead of time and all horse-trading will already have been done. The only other way to get round the problem is to turn this into an England and Wales Bill or an England, Wales and Northern Ireland Bill and leave Scotland out of it altogether. The objective that we are striving towards is that there should be a UK policy on climate change and that everyone will fit into it. We are not saying that they should do exactly what Westminster says; we are simply saying that there should be a requirement on the national authorities to co-operate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 64 and 64A not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Annual statement of UK emissions]:
	[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Clause 12, page 6, line 22, after "Parliament" insert "and table a resolution for its approval"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 86, 89 and 92, which bring the same argument to bear to Amendment No. 66.
	Interestingly, a short while ago we were talking about Parliament's role in scrutinising the legislation and these amendments are about part of that process. Hand in hand with our efforts to increase the power and independence of the Climate Change Committee, we are seeking to increase parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. These amendments put into legislation what I have previously described as the triangular arrangement between the Government, Parliament and the Climate Change Committee.
	As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State is required to lay down certain reports before Parliament. We on these Benches do not want to risk these statements slipping into Hansard unnoticed. The reporting mechanism on the progress in the fight against climate change needs to be rigorous. We need to have a statutory way of ensuring that reports on the Government's success or failure do not slip between the cracks and disappear. That is why our amendments require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament not only the annual statement of UK emissions, the final statement for budgetary periods and the final statement for 2050, but also to table a resolution for its approval. In this way, we will ensure that it receives the attention it deserves.
	Parliamentary scrutiny of the progress is essential to ensure that the Government accounts for their actions. It allows for debate on the Floor of the House and for increased chance of public engagement. Does the Minister agree that increased scrutiny on the reports of progress increases the impetus on the Government to act? Does the Minister agree that seeking greater transparency would be beneficial?
	The increased chance for public engagement is not just empty rhetoric. This is a problem that will require the concerted action not only of government departments, but of individual citizens. Any opportunity that might increase public awareness and engagement with our progress towards ending climate change should be considered a very good thing indeed. Does the Minister agree? What would be the Minister's reasons for not allowing Parliament a chance to debate the reports in both Houses? I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: This seems to be a very good way of ensuring that these reports are debated within Parliament. We are supportive of this group of amendments—although expect that votes might go the wrong way, recalling the reminder to us all from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the strength of government Whips and Parliament's procedures to make sure that the Government get their way. This effectively makes sure that these reports presumably are debated on the Floor of both Houses. We believe that is essential and good for the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My remarks will be extremely brief. I support the amendments moved by my noble friends for the very reasons that they gave, but will give an additional reason. I can well recall when we were taking the lottery Bill through that we made it clear to the House that we would make available a day's debate every year, to see if the House wished to vary the amount of money going to the particular lottery interests and distributors, according to the change in the circumstances of cultural life.
	That there was going to be such an opportunity was a powerful reason the figures that we put into the Bill originally were not amended. We did not, as I recall, in any way stipulate this as being a formal part of the lottery process. It is no surprise that an incoming Administration chose to handle the lottery in a quite different way, perhaps because that restraint was not available. Had we had the opportunity to debate the purposes of the Lottery more frequently, the lottery might be in a happier position today. For that reason—the same as given by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—it is highly desirable that the opportunity for debate, as this 43 years unfolds, is all to the good.

The Earl of Selborne: I suspect that the Minister will tell us that it would be unusual to stipulate the need for an amendment or debate on these measures. However, I suggest that we should give that more thought and that this recommendation should be supported. After all, we are talking about something very much more fundamental. It is something that if unusual, is so for a good cause.

Lord Puttnam: I, too, support this amendment. It is perfectly sound and all of a piece with the overall recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee.

Lord Rooker: I am in trouble here. Regarding the final points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about having debates on the Floor of both Houses, this amendment requires no such thing. I can assure noble Lords that that would not happen. I will come to the substantive point on whether it adds any value, because that is an important aspect of this.
	From a practical point of view, this House obviously has a different structure from the other place, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no way that a piece of legislation would require there to be debates on the Floor. There would be ways to put it to a committee somewhere or to make it more targeted. However, I take the point about the level of parliamentary interest and scrutiny. All the amendments want the issue to be put upfront, which is important.
	We have discussed the balance of responsibilities between the Committee on Climate Change, the Government and Parliament. However, we should ask ourselves if the amendments as drafted—because I can deal only with the way that they are drafted—add any value.
	Clauses 12, 14 and 15 already require these statements to be laid before Parliament. If there were any concern in Parliament about the content of the publications, there is a dozen ways of raising any issue in the other place. I have no doubt that, one day, when I am no longer at this Box, I will find a dozen ways of raising issues in this place because I simply do not the procedure from the Back Benches. However, there are enough ways of raising concerns in Parliament.
	Therefore, having laid them before Parliament for formal approval, we would argue in terms of what is the best use of parliamentary time. However, that might not require a debate. If the business managers got to work, it could be done without one, but the objective of ensuring that these things were upfront in Parliament would be lost. It is important that Members of this House keep a very close watch.
	I turn to some important technical aspects. The Bill requires that the statements provided under these clauses have to be compiled in accordance with international methodologies. That means that the most up-to-date and accurate information available must be used, as must the same systems and emissions data as in the annual emissions inventory which the UK is already required to submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
	A background paper on how this emissions inventory is compiled has already been circulated. Briefly, the annual emissions inventory publication is produced by independent consultants on the Government's behalf, and is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics. It is respected, subject to rigorous quality assurance and peer review, and supplied according to international guidelines. The information provided is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and all UK emissions data are also independently scrutinised under the framework convention arrangements. The latest United Nations review of the UK inventory accepted all UK emissions statistics without adjustment. It is not as though we are a completely free agent in the way that these reports are put together; I emphasise that they are done to criteria set out internationally, peer reviewed and produced by independent consultants.
	Given the safeguards that are already in place to ensure the quality and reliability of the information provided under these clauses and Parliament's existing scrutiny powers, we are not convinced that the proposed requirement for Parliament to approve the statements would add any value. There are lots of items of legislation that require annual debates on the Floor. I shall not list them, as I have not checked recently which they are and I could be a bit out of date, having left the other place. However, certain items and aspects of legislation are required to have an annual debate. That is not necessarily the same as approval. The question is what the noble Lord wants. If it is approval, I can assure the Committee that that would probably be done without debate, which does not add value to what is already happening. The accuracy and reliability of the information is almost outside the Government because we are subject to international rules, and we do not want to change that. If it is intended to have a look at this, the objective has to be to add value to what is already going to happen, given the requirement in the Bill to lay the reports before Parliament. A requirement for an annual debate is not the same thing as a requirement for Parliament to approve.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Probably for the first time in the Committee's discussions, I feel really disappointed by the Minister's response. To some extent, I feel that he has missed the point. If I say that it is Civil Service-speak, I do not mean it in a derogatory sense. It is the Executive seeking to maintain discretion on these matters and not truly seeing the enormous importance of engaging public interest, through Parliament, in what the Government are seeking to do. A Government who cannot and do not wish to engage Parliament as an ally in this pursuit will fail. The Minister may suggest that no Government will seek to fail to engage Parliament in this great adventure. He has conceded that many significant measures are currently in force that require an annual debate. The Climate Change Bill—or Act, as it will become—is of such importance that public debate on an annual basis is necessary.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I listened closely to what my noble friend said. I did not understand him to say that he is totally opposed to it; he said that it was technically not possible because of the way procedure works in the House of Commons. That is surely a reasonable response.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It may appear to be a reasonable response, but the reason why these amendments may be important is because they give Parliament an opportunity to say that it requires this. Currently, as I understand it, it is a matter for the business managers to determine.

Lord Rooker: I feel really hurt about this. I went way beyond my brief. I actually explained, almost, how the noble Lord could go away and draft an amendment to get the objective he wanted because his amendment does not require any parliamentary action or scrutiny—or maybe only one of the silent votes they have in the other place when they tick a box on a Wednesday afternoon. That would be approval, but it is not a debate. If the requirement is to get the thing on the Floor to have an annual debate, that is another issue altogether. That is not what this amendment does. I was giving an answer to a problem that arose—as my noble friend spotted straight away—and I am chastised for giving the most negative response so far.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In which case, I have to ask the Minister's forgiveness. I have managed to clarify the situation in my own mind, at least; he is hostile not to the objective of this amendment but to the wording. I am a new parliamentarian—I am very new to the ways of this place and have no idea about the ways of another place—but I am very aware that parliamentary business can be controlled by the Executive, and I feel that the Bill needs to give a lever for parliamentarians to have the opportunity of debating these reports. If we can find a way—and the Minister said that he has already talked to his advisers on this matter and about the ways in which Parliament can be set centre stage—that would make an enormous difference. I hope that the Minister will look at this between now and Report to see whether there is a way and a wording that can be put into the Bill to make these annual reports a matter for parliamentary discussion on an annual basis. Subject to that, and the comments made by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 67:
	Clause 12, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) The statement must be prepared and approved by the Committee on Climate Change."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This group of amendments follows on from our previous debate. In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 90. These amendments do involve not parliamentary procedure but the climate change committee. They form the other part of the triangle. I hope our concepts are clear; they are part of a structural system for getting agreements, consensus and action.
	We feel that the statement that the Secretary of State is to lay before Parliament should be prepared by the climate change committee. It is important that the statements reporting on UK emissions—for example, whether the budgets have been met—are prepared by the people who are best qualified to assess success or failure and the experts of the committee. We have said all along that we feel that we must leave the science to the experts. Allowing the climate change committee to prepare the statement depoliticises the process and fosters the credibility of the reporting mechanism. The independence of the committee ensures that a report that might be critical of the Government gets aired appropriately and without the spin that might occlude our idea of how far we really are from our goals. Placing a duty on the climate change committee to prepare the statements ensures that the Government do not have too much control over how they are being assessed on how well they are reducing carbon emissions. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I like this amendment a lot. It takes us back to the earlier debate on the powers of the climate change committee—what I call the party and what the noble Lord referred to as the triangular relationship. If the committee has this kind of responsibility, it will focus the minds of the membership on the need to take realistic and real decisions for which they are accountable.
	I have another reason as well. Ministers in all Governments are very often fearful of taking very difficult decisions. It is just the way we are. Sometimes Members of Parliament—particularly in the other place—grumble in the Tea Room about a decision that has been taken by the Government. Sometimes they know the reason behind it. Sometimes—and I am talking across parties—they talk about the inadequacy of Ministers because they fear to take those great decisions. My noble friend Lord Rooker was very firm in the decisions that he took during the period when I was in the House of Commons on the Back Benches and he was a Minister. I hope I do not embarrass my noble friend when I say that he was quite exceptional in being very deliberate in the decisions that he took. I am fearful that Ministers might duck decisions.
	Therefore what we have here is a mechanism behind which they can hide and say: "Not me, guv, but them"—because the committee will have to approve. And therefore Ministers—whatever they make as a recommendation— will have to have in mind what the views of the climate change committee are. If that is what is takes to give Ministers the bottle to make the big decisions then so be it and let the committee have this very important role.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I am in a strange position in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the word "depoliticise" but that can also be substituted for "de-democratise". We need to be careful about this area. That is why there may be a tension between those on these Benches and those on the Conservative Benches regarding the degree of independence, strength and role of the climate change committee, although we are moving in the same direction.
	The list of things that have to be reported on in this area are those on which the Government have to report on internationally anyway. Most of them already have to be calculated. So this amendment is in the wrong place. The list of things that have to be done by the climate change committee are calculations that, if anything, should be audited; the climate change committee should not necessarily have a separate section to recheck the work that has been done anyway by Defra. I am not convinced in this area. Depoliticisation can mean de-democratisation. Work in this area has to be done by Government and reported internationally. There is a risk of doing this twice. The climate change committee has more important things to do in this area. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will come back to me and put me right.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I cannot envisage how the climate change committee can do its job—which is after all not just to monitor but to set programmes thereon—unless it has confidence in its own figures. Simply to say that that is a responsibility of the Executive and that we will take their figures is a compete denial of their responsibilities. That is not to say the Government will not do the work themselves as well: if that is duplication, it is duplication for a good cause.
	The climate change committee will use a number of organisations that are available to Government to do calculations and monitoring of greenhouse gas and other relevant emissions. This is a sensible amendment—and an inevitable one if the climate change committee is to exert its proper role.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend. I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because clearly the climate change committee if it is going to operate successfully must come forward with a statement and have it approved. I hope that the voices around the Chamber will encourage the Minister to realise that on all sides—well, nearly all sides—of the Committee we feel that this amendment is hugely important.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I suppose that I should put a contradictory point of view. Unusually, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and disagree with my noble friend who spoke in favour.
	This is about statements of fact—annually, at each four-year budgetary period or whatever it happens to be in due course and in 2050—and not statements of intention of policy proposals. It is getting almost to the point of paranoia to think that if that is done by the Government the facts will have to be verified internationally and that this will in some way reduce the role or significance of the climate change committee. I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We want to ensure that its authority and standing is respected. This would not make the slightest difference. If there was any query by the committee of government figures, the Government would soon know that and so would the public.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, Clause 12(2)(b) states: "identify the methods". The amendment refers to "approved by". Could there not be an argument between the Government and the committee on the method?

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I apologise. Could the noble Lord refer me to which of the amendments on which page he is referring?

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am tempted to refer to a statement made by the Government a few clauses back. The outcome is more important than the process. To someone brought up in the tradition of public service in this country this is a revolutionary suggestion. I suggest to the Government that in as area as novel and potentially difficult as this there is a good deal to be said for being fairly scrupulous in consulting the opinion of the committee.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I cannot disagree. But that is quite different from this statement of facts that have to be drawn up by and approved by the committee.
	It is inconceivable that the Government of the day would publish figures that would clearly be disputed by the climate change committee, because if the committee disputed it so would the various international agents. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The methods used to measure and calculate would have to meet international conventions and requirements. Many times in these debates we talk as if this is simply something that this country is doing and nothing else to do with the rest of the world at all. We lose sight of this—we will come to this when we discuss aviation—as if this was not taking place in any context at all. There are so many other places where the thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is appropriate that it would be a pity to push for this area which does not add anything at all. In other areas it possibly does. When we discuss areas of policy, direction and the speed at which we can progress, the committee is going to be very important indeed.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I would like to intervene on my noble friend again on the word "method". They may well choose a method which is disputed by the Government. My noble friend says that there are international norms in the methods that might be used. The facts are that there are other areas. Let us take the issue of the golden rule. We have our interpretation which we believe is absolutely correct on how the golden rule method of calculating works in finance. Others have another interpretation. I am worried that an argument may develop about the way in which the statistics have been drawn up—the kind of argument that might focus on political parties arguing over interpretation.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Surely it is completely inconceivable that the Secretary of State, whoever it may be at the time, would ever attempt to draft such a report without first getting a detailed brief from the Committee on Climate Change. Having said that, I find it rather funny-peculiar that we do not trust the Committee on Climate Change to write its own report in language sufficiently intelligible that ordinary Members of Parliament would understand it. I find myself wondering what the compelling reason might be for the Secretary of State to have to redraft the report. So far, no one has said why it should be so.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I used to run the Met Office. We produced weather statistics and government Ministers would say that it was hot, cold or whatever, and quote the figures supplied by the Hadley Centre. The point was made earlier that the Government issue a statement based on data produced by a public service agency. The issue with this drafting is that Clause 12(2) does not state who actually produces the figures. It may be that with redrafting this subsection could state that the Committee on Climate Change should be responsible for emissions figures which will be quite complex and open to question. For example, UK removals is a very difficult calculation to make, depending on forestry, emissions from waste areas and so on. I imagine that the Government will take data from the Committee on Climate Change and perhaps other organisations and then make their statement. As for the notion that the Met Office provides what the Government say about the weather, that is not something that we normally do.

Lord Rooker: As there is some confusion here I shall start, at the risk of repeating myself after the last debate, by making a point about where the amendments add value to the Bill. The UK's national emissions inventory publication is produced each year by independent consultants on the Government's behalf. That is what happens now and what will continue to happen. The publication is respected, subject to peer review and supplied according to international guidelines. It is not something knocked up by Defra, far from it. Rigorous measures are in place to ensure the quality of the information, which is set out in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and is subject to further independent scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Therefore we do not agree that the Committee on Climate Change should be required to lay before Parliament an annual statement of UK emissions. Not only would this be costly, it would definitely be potentially confusing if it duplicated the work of the official emissions inventory that the Government are already required to produce under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
	However, we recognise that members of the Committee on Climate Change will be experts in their field and we are considering how best to ensure a constructive dialogue on the kind of issues we have covered in the last two debates. I apologise for this, but I shall refer to another clause, Clause 30(2), which states specifically that the committee may take on a role in assisting,
	"in connection with the preparation of statistics relating to greenhouse gas emissions".
	There are already in place well-established mechanisms which allow other non-departmental public bodies to contribute to issues of this kind. Obviously we are willing to look at how the committee or members of its secretariat could play a similar role because that makes sense, but we do not want duplication leading to confusion.
	I shall give an example. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK Government are obliged to have in place a national system to ensure that the inventory remains of the highest quality. In the UK this takes the form of a steering committee of experts and stakeholders, and we will certainly consider inviting members of the committee secretariat to the formal national system meetings to ensure that we are able to draw on their expertise in the inventory preparation process. In other words, there is a job to be done and the Committee on Climate Change has a role in it, but it certainly cannot be a job of duplication.
	Underlying some of the comments were indications of dodgy government statistics and dodgy government reports produced by government departments that we do not trust. But that does not happen. As I explained, the information is produced by independent contractors. It is peer reviewed to international standards and scrutinised by the UN framework and is in conformity with the Office for National Statistics. If anyone wants to come back on Report to say that it is not working and that claims have been made and so on, then that is fine. But no one has said that today. It is as though people are saying that the infrastructure for producing the emissions inventory does not exist, but it does exist. It is important that the Committee on Climate Change is locked into it, but not in a way that would duplicate the work and thus lead to confusion. We will certainly look further at how the network of the various bodies can be linked up properly. Obviously the Committee on Climate Change does not exist yet. It is the new kid on the block, as it were, and it is very important that its pronouncements and advice are based on the best available information. But it does not add to the proposals in this Bill to seek to duplicate what already exists.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Minister talks about duplication but has already admitted that there exists a body which is effectively doing the work that I would see the Committee on Climate Change doing. I cannot see the committee being happy about not being involved in evaluating these issues because they form the working material that it will be engaged with. This is the committee's area of activity. So I was surprised by the Minister's suggestion that the secretariat will be allowed to come along to meetings of the other body—I have forgotten the name he mentioned—that is currently producing these figures. Representatives will be allowed, as if by grace, into the inner workings of this body.
	I believe that we are drifting apart on this, not just because I am getting tired but because this is to some degree about territory. The general principle here is that this is about how much responsibility we will give to the Committee on Climate Change and how much responsibility the Executive, the Government and the Secretary of State will retain under their control.
	It has become clear over the course of the last few amendments that the Minister is reluctant to give ground in this area, whereas the substance of the contributions from Members of the Committee has been to acknowledge that, if it is to be effective, the committee will need to be trusted and given authority. I except from that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is worried about giving powers to a non-elected body. However, this is such a technical matter and such a long-term issue where continuity will be important—Governments come and go, and Ministers certainly do so—that it is vital to ensure a full role for the Committee on Climate Change in all its aspects.
	The committee's authority will be important to the Government because they will need that authority to take some of the difficult decisions they are going to face. If the Government take all responsibility for decisions and leave the committee in a sort of advisory offstage role, allowed out only when it suits, they will find it quite difficult to cope with the political consequences . It would be far better to have the committee in on the decision-making process and clearly recognised as the author of the statistics. These statistics will not be out of line with those required by the Kyoto Protocol because they will be the same vehicle by which all these matters will be measured by the Committee on Climate Change itself. But in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Clause 12, page 6, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) state the amount for 1990 of UK emissions, UK removals and net UK emissions of that gas,"

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I return to the fray. We are trying to deal with the baseline year, remove some unnecessary words from the Bill and tidy up the language to make it more precise. I am moving Amendment No. 68, but will also speak to Amendment No. 74. I do not expect it to be too controversial and hope the Minister will agree to this change. Amendment No. 68 is more substantial. As long as 1990 is the baseline year, we on these Benches would like to ensure that annual reports have regard to the baseline year—the baseline on which the 2050 target is based. We want to avoid a situation in which it might appear that reductions have been made in the short term, when little substantive change has occurred since the baseline year—or worse, as the case is now. Ministers often say that carbon emissions have decreased since 1990, but, on the current Government's watch, emissions have increased since 1997. It is true that this increase has been smaller than the decrease from 1990 to 1997, which means that there has been a small decrease overall. That paints a rather rosier picture of emissions than perhaps is justified.
	I appreciate that climate change has not been taken as seriously in the past as it is now. It is of course this Government who are bringing forth this very important legislation, which we support. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that, no matter who is in government, we have an accurate picture of our progress. We cannot risk being misled into thinking that we are performing better than we are. We need to ensure that our understanding and the public's understanding of our success in reducing carbon emissions is as accurate as possible. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selborne: In the debate on the previous amendment the Minister rightly pointed out that there was an international protocol for emissions and therefore not much dispute as to what the figures should say. Carbon removal is very different. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point that, going back to 1990, the figures on how much carbon sequestration was taking place remain largely unknown. It is a question of trying to determine soil organic content, tree growth and much else besides. You might say that the monitoring and assessment is a moving target; there is no international protocol that I know of that can help. This is helpful because the figure for reductions, rather than emissions, will be nothing like as obvious as we might assume.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for those last remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He identifies the difficulty of having one base year when the base year may not be particularly effective in certain areas that we wish to measure. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we are at one with him in seeking to provide the information that gives an accurate comparative analysis so that the nation can identify the progress being made. That is of the greatest importance.
	In a moment I will cross swords a little with the noble Lord on Amendment No. 74, to which we take considerable exception. I am more positive about Amendment No. 68. Clause 4 defines a carbon budget as,
	"an amount for the net UK carbon account"
	for each budgetary period. Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to report for each year of the budget period on the amount of the net UK carbon account for that year. The Clause 12 statements will provide all the information needed to calculate progress against the budget for each year of the period. I recognise that the noble Lord made a strenuous and convincing attempt to argue for greater transparency of progress. We will look at the clause as it stands and see if we can meet that position as we progress through the Bill.
	We cannot accept the actual amendment. I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate his objectives, we cannot accept his amendment. It would require comparison with the emissions of each greenhouse gas in 1990. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has identified why base year 1990 simply may not be effective for certain areas. Clause 20 proposes that the Secretary of State should select a base year other than 1990 for different non-CO2 gases if a comparison is to be drawn, recognising that 1990 is not a good base year for the accuracy of the whole picture. I hope the noble Lord recognises that although I accept his intentions and will seek to make progress on the probe that he sets out in his amendment, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
	I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate the sentiment behind Amendment No. 74, we simply do not think that it would work. The purpose of the Clause 12 statement is to set out clearly the quantity of emissions occurring in the UK, the number of carbon units used and the net UK carbon account. If we simply referred to the total carbon units, as Amendment No. 74 proposes, we would fail to capture a situation in which carbon units were worth different amounts. In this situation what would matter is not how many carbon units there were but what the carbon units were worth, which may change. The terminology of amounts of emissions and carbon units is used continually throughout, because of the point that I just made. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we are therefore very resistant to changing the terminology of the Bill in accordance with Amendment No. 74. We will certainly look at Amendment No. 68, although I have indicated that the amendment will not quite do. We recognise his powerful plea for greater transparency and will see what we can do to meet that at a later stage.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: You win one and you lose one. I thought Amendment No. 74 was quite simple and straightforward. Obviously, from the Government's point of view it is more complex than mere semantic phraseology. We will have a chance to consider that. However, I am pleased that although our wording in Amendment No. 68 is not quite what the Government would have put forward, they will indeed look at it in order to recognise that getting a baseline relevant to popular perception and political reality is important. I look forward to seeing those government amendments tabled on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Clause 12, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) It must contain a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the climate change strategy and recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies for inclusion in the strategy."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This amendment concerns the annual statement and the fact that it should report on the effectiveness of measures; in other words, that it is a matter not only of the annual statement saying what the facts are but of how effective individual initiatives have been. This is an extremely important point. Many of the previous amendments moved today have focused on increasing the accuracy and transparency of the reporting process. I am pleased to hear from the government Benches that they accept that this is an important aspect of what the Bill should seek to do. We feel that these are important mechanisms to have in place to ensure that the Government, Parliament and the Committee on Climate Change are working together in the right balance.
	The most essential feature missing from the Bill's reporting procedures is the duty for the reports to contain an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Amendment No. 70 requires that the statement laid before Parliament should include a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the climate change strategy as well as details of any further policies or proposals that may need to be included. Government policies to reduce emissions should be assessed regularly; their successes should be reported on openly and changes should be proposed wherever progress is falling short.
	As I mentioned before, we fully intend on being the Government responsible for the report on the first budgetary period and many of us are spending a great deal of our time ensuring that that comes about. We are willing to stand up to this kind of scrutiny and I hope the current Government are also prepared to do so. In a sense, this is like the annual finance Budget: the Chancellor proposes a tax and spending regime for a year, and he says he will bring in £X billion in taxation and spend £Y billion on providing services. It is inevitable that the following year the Chancellor finds that growth was not exactly as predicted or that events caused a little more spending than proposed, and the next Budget will therefore make the necessary adjustments to get things back on track. This is how we should deal with carbon emissions if we are to bring them under control.
	The environmental group Friends of the Earth claims that the amendment is exactly the approach needed under the Bill. Does the Minister agree? I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is an interesting amendment because if the figures produced by the Committee on Climate Change are sufficiently strong and are presented sufficiently clearly, which we all hope they will be, they will in themselves be a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the measures. I am worried that the amendment would add to the verbiage presented to Parliament and possibly cloud the issue. I hope the figures will speak loudly for themselves.
	Although the Committee on Climate Change should play an active role in recommending new measures and proposals, we need to think very carefully about this. Going back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Teverson on a previous amendment, there is a fine line between the democratically accountable body responsible for producing policy—which, after all, the Government are elected to do—and the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body which is there to produce the figures and monitor whether the Government are succeeding with their policies. The amendment seems to cloud those two issues together.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Before the Minister responds perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will clarify two matters. First, in introducing the amendment he emphasised that it was to do with a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of policy and what is going on. In fact, the amendment goes on to say that it should include,
	"recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies".
	A few moments ago the noble Lord proposed that the statement should be drawn up and approved by the Committee on Climate Change. I assume that he is not suggesting that the committee should draw up recommendations for new measures, policies and proposals; that he separates in his mind the responsibility of the Committee on Climate Change for drawing up data from making policy proposals—for example, whether there should be more nuclear power stations and so on. I assume that is not something he thinks the Committee on Climate Change should do.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The amendment does indeed contain the phrase,
	"and recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies for inclusion in the strategy".
	If our amendments had been accepted by the Committee and not withdrawn by ourselves, the statement would have been produced by the Committee on Climate Change. It is important to emphasise that we on this side of the House see the Committee on Climate Change as having considerable authority in these matters and as a considerable skill base with which to provide government with recommendations. In many cases, we have been reluctant to talk about "advice" or "recommending"—we have been firmer than that—but in this area the word used is "recommendations" because those people who are aware of an energy imbalance may well be capable of pointing out that it could be addressed by a particular course of energy policy.
	If the Committee on Climate Change is to be the authoritative body we would like it to be, I would expect it to be in a position whereby it could present such proposals. If it is not to be the Committee on Climate Change but, by the will of Parliament, it is to be the Secretary of State, it would do no harm at all if he at least included in the statement those matters he considered necessary to put the climate change agenda back on course. I hope that clarifies matters for the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and Members of the Committee.

Lord Teverson: I shall probably embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, by agreeing with him again in this area. I will have a great concern if the Committee on Climate Change starts making major policy recommendations to government. That would be the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, wants: it would not depoliticise the decisions but would utterly politicise the Committee on Climate Change. It would be like many other bodies, such as the Sustainable Transport Commission, which are very important and have many important people on them, but they make all kinds of recommendations and are therefore seen as part of the political scenery and not as part of the scientific scenery.
	There is also confusion—perhaps not on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but within the Committee—and later in the Bill we will discuss the Committee on Climate Change itself. In one of the sections there is a call for an annual report. We on these Benches want to see in the Bill not only that annual report but a requirement for the Committee on Climate Change to go as far as to judge whether present government policies are likely to meet their own targets. It should have that important role but it should not be allowed to go as far as to then say, "But, Secretary of State, you should be doing this". The moment that happens it becomes a political organisation and not a scientific organisation.
	You could argue that in another way if all scientists had the same view about things, but they do not. The whole point about science is that there are peer reviews and all kinds of differing opinions and there then tends to be a consensus about a particular subject. We can see this in climate change science at the moment.
	I am worried about the proposal to move the Committee on Climate Change into, effectively, a political lobbying organisation, which the amendment would do. We shall come to one of our amendments later in the Bill. The Committee on Climate Change must have a greater ability than being only the accounting organisation described in the Bill, but the furthest it should go is to assess government policy and whether it will strategically meet its targets, state that openly and objectively, and then it will be up to government to respond and be responsible to Parliament for that response. I genuinely think this is a dangerous amendment in terms of the politicisation of the Committee on Climate Change.

Lord Rooker: We appreciate the spirit of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I repeat that we are keen to ensure the transparency of the overall framework of the Bill, and not just of individual clauses. That will be looked at throughout the Bill.
	We have provided a system of annual accountability through the Government's statement of UK emissions under Clause 12, the committee's progress report to Parliament under Clause 28, and the Government's response under Clause 29. We look forward to discussing those clauses later on.
	However, the amendment would not help the process of annual accountability, because the statement under Clause 12 is meant simply to provide factual information on net UK emissions and carbon units. The information will be quantified and verified. It will put the facts clearly on the table for everyone. It should then be for the independent Committee on Climate Change to make the first assessment of whether those facts demonstrate sufficient progress. This would ensure that the assessment was robust and objective.
	The approach in the Bill is for the Clause 12 report to be laid in March, to provide the essential factual information. Much of this information would not be available until that date. Based on the factual information contained in the Clause 12 statement, the Committee on Climate Change would then have until June to make its assessment of progress and lay its Clause 28 report before Parliament. The Government would then have to respond under Clause 29 by—I think—October. The amendment, taken with Amendment No. 67, which we discussed earlier, would require the committee to make a first assessment of progress in March under Clause 12, and then a second assessment in June under Clause 28. That would lead to massive duplication.
	I am not seeking to cut debate short, but I hope that we will have a full discussion of the issue in the context of Clauses 28 and 29. It is best, if noble Lords agree, to leave it until then, when we can debate the matter in the round.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This has again been a useful debate. It will perhaps be useful to bear in mind what we have said about the amendment when we consider the role of the climate change committee. If we have the Government's assurance that much of the debate that we have on the climate change committee as we progress through the Bill will influence the way in which we view amendments along the way, I am happy withdraw the amendment and accept what the Government have said about the timetable that is available for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Clause 12, page 7, line 10, leave out from "than" to end and insert "12 months following the laying of the previous year's report"

Lord Teverson: I had a specific purpose in tabling the amendment, but when I read how it was drafted, it did not seem to mean the same thing. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that. I shall therefore explain to the Committee what I want the amendment to do. The report to which it relates is important, whatever its final content. From a psychological, management and every other perspective, for it to be issued in the March of the second year following that to which it relates is too late. It would be two calendar years later, even though it would be 15 months after the end of the year. The amendment would require the report to be issued and submitted within a calendar year of the end of the year for which it accounts; that is, not within 15 months, but 12 months. The period in the Bill is too long. We need to bring it down to within a year of the year in question. The amendment would achieve that, which would be important in terms of maintaining momentum and of the management of the process. If we get too out of date in terms of the numbers that we are looking at, it prevents reasonable management action being taken and loses momentum in terms of public interest and the currency of the report. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is certainly interesting. It would help the Committee if the Minister provided a little more explanation. Will he explain why it takes two years to make the report? Is it by any chance tied in with the intervals that are fixed under European Emissions Trading Scheme, or are we trying to comply with an international norm? Could the delay be solved by the committee taking a more active role or even being expanded? Are all budgets and statements likely to be subject to a two-year delay? If not, why are some easier to report than others?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made clear in his opening contribution, but it would not add anything to the Bill. Clause 12(9) sets a deadline for each annual report, which ensures that Parliament receives information on the UK's emissions as soon as it becomes available and by a set timetable. The danger is that the amendment could create two possible disadvantages. It might mean that Parliament received less information, because it would apply only to the second and subsequent emissions statements. There would be no deadline for the first emissions statement, relating to 2008, to be laid before Parliament, whereas we have made a commitment in the Bill for that report to obtain for that year.
	The second possible disadvantage will be recognised on all sides of the Committee. If in any one year the Government found themselves able to publish the report earlier than they did in the previous year, they might be tempted to hold back, not because they were not ready to present the report, which would be recognised by parliamentarians as an advantage, but because by presenting the report early one year, they would then be committing themselves to exactly that timetable for the next year. The rigidity of the timetable which the noble Lord's amendment contains creates the danger of the Government being tempted to hold back the report until the last minute, because, once they publish early, they would be committing themselves to that date in the following year.
	We all recognise that we live in a real world in which all this is work for government and a challenge to the Civil Service machine, and there is very great importance attached to the work that is done. In the Bill we have provided for regular reports on each year, while the noble Lord's amendment potentially presents two disadvantages. The Government have their commitment to a report on each year, which is preferable to the particular rigidity that the noble Lord's amendment would introduce into the operation, which could lead to the responses and developments that I have indicated.

Lord Teverson: I apologise that my amendment does not say what I meant it to say. As the amendment stands, I would probably agree with his reply myself. However, for a point of debate for a later stage, I am saying that the report should be within 12 months. That is shorter but no more rigid than the timetable proposed. The Minister does not suggest that it is technically impossible; indeed, multinational corporations produce global accounts in far more detail, in far less time. That is what I would like the Minister to respond to, if he could. At the same time, I recognise that I have not drafted the amendment as it should be.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise that I am obliged to respond to the amendment before the Committee. That is my obligation to the Committee—but it is also my obligation to the Bill. I have to respond to what the amendment would actually do to the Bill and it is on that basis that I am objecting to it. I understand what the noble Lord is saying in more specific terms, but it is not what his amendment would do.
	The problem that we have in terms of the immediate annual report is that the inventory requires collection of data from a wide variety of sources, including the department's Digest of UK Energy Statistics, which is published annually seven months after the end of the reporting year in question—namely, in July. That is such a crucial set of statistics in relation to these issues, so tying down a position in which this report might have to be out in March, when we do not have the data that will become available later in the year, creates an obvious difficulty. That is why, while sticking firmly to the principle of proper reporting, we must take account of the fact that compiling this data—which have to be accurate and meet international standards, as that is absolutely crucial to the country's position with regard to these issues—is a complex task. I hope that noble Lords opposite will recognise that that is why the Bill is drafted as it is with regard to the timetable.

Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for his response, but to be honest I do not buy it, because multinational corporations have to produce worldwide figures in huge detail under different jurisdictions in a much shorter timescale. I do not see how this is a problem. I thought that the Minister might say that it was impossible due to various other international timetables, but he did not say that—so that is fine. I shall bring the amendment back at another time, because it is very important for the credibility of the whole process and for the Government's credibility in what they are trying to achieve that the figures that come out are relevant to the particular period. That is not a party-political point in any way. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.

Lord Rooker: I suggest that this would be an appropriate moment to break and that we do not return until 8.37 pm. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Health: Audiology

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing the National Audiology Action Plan contained within the Department of Health report, Improving Access to Audiology Services in England; how they intend to ensure that audiology is regarded as a priority area by strategic health authorities and primary care trusts; and what specific role they envisage for the independent sector.
	My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have used hearing aids of one kind or another for almost half a century. More recently, I have had the considerable benefit of the new digital aids, in both ears. Put bluntly, because I have been able to afford the independent sector's excellent audiology services, I am able to remain a fully included Member of your Lordships' House and the wider community.
	My concern is that everyone with hearing needs should receive the same timely service from the NHS. Sadly, that is not the case at present, as capacity in the NHS is not keeping pace with demand. As your Lordships will recall, on 1 March last year, in order to address this problem the Government published their long awaited national audiology action plan. Your Lordships will note that this document was published on the same day that the Minister was due to appear before the House of Commons Health Select Committee, in order to respond to its concerns over audiology services in England. The very fact that that committee launched this inquiry underlines the seriousness of the situation. Yet neither the committee's report nor the Government's response, published, respectively, in May and July last year, has yet been debated in either House. Furthermore, most of the representative bodies at the inquiry have expressed their views on that response, and they are all very critical, so today's debate is both necessary and timely.
	There can be no doubt about the scale of the problem which, with our ageing population, is bound to become more pressing. The RNID estimates that 55 per cent of people over 60 are deaf or hard of hearing. In total, over 4 million people in the UK have a hearing difficulty that would be assisted through the use of properly prescribed hearing aids, and it is common ground, which I hope the Minister will confirm, that about 2 million people in need are not yet provided with a hearing aid or aids. So there is clearly a huge task still to be tackled.
	Your Lordships will recall how often, in other debates, we all, but especially the Government, have emphasised the need for inclusive social policies. One witness quoted by the RNID, Janine Roebuck, an opera singer, makes very clear just how important that concept is in this context. She says:
	"My hearing aids are my lifeline. Long hearing aid waiting times means spending years struggling to hear and battling isolation and depression".
	That is the background to have in mind, as we react to the fact, whatever the long-term need, that as stated by the RNID no less than 250,000 people are currently waiting for a digital hearing aid.
	How have the Government reacted? In May 2006, they set a target that by March 2007 no one should have to wait longer than 13 weeks for an audiology assessment—note those words carefully—and that by March of this year no one should be waiting longer than six weeks. However, the most recent figures, for October, show that almost 48,000 people were still waiting more than six weeks for an assessment, and more than 34,000 over 13 weeks. Furthermore, more than 13,000 patients have been waiting longer than a year for an assessment. I stress that these government targets and figures are for waiting times for an assessment only, and certainly not for actually being fitted with a hearing aid. Remarkably, the Government do not publish waiting-time data for what is called "the full patient journey".
	What then is the picture if one takes in that second period between assessment and supply—as clearly one must? Indeed, the Select Committee specifically recommended that. For the past four years the British Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists—BSHAA—has carried out an annual survey of waiting times for precisely that full patient journey from referral to supply. Its results are, therefore, much more meaningful than the Government's official figures and the findings are even more disturbing. The latest BSHAA survey published last September indicated that while there has been some fall in waiting times in the past year, patients are still having to wait an average of 36 to 38 weeks between referral and the actual fitting, at last, of a digital hearing aid. Moreover—and astonishingly for someone wanting only to upgrade from an analogue to a digital hearing aid—the average waiting time is even longer: between 44 and 47 weeks.
	These BSHAA surveys have also highlighted serious regional discrepancies in waiting times. This has recently been underlined by a report from the RNID based upon freedom of information requests, delivered to every PCT, only two months ago. Out of the 100 trusts that have responded, no less than 11 have average waiting times of more than a year from GP referral to fitting of hearing aids. Some have waiting times of more than 18 months. In Kingston-upon-Thames, new adult patients wait an average of two-and-a-half years. Who knows how much worse the figures might be for the 50 or so trusts that have failed to reply to the RNID? What are the Government doing to address this? At one time we thought we knew. In July 2006, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, announced that 1.5 million patient pathways were to be procured from the independent sector at a rate of 300,000 per annum for five years. We have now passed that date and, alas, have seen no evidence of this happening. Instead, strategic health authorities locally have been tasked with filling their capacity gaps with,
	"a combination of greater efficiency in existing services where possible, and, where that is insufficient, new capacity".
	So what has happened to the national audiology action plan and why do we have no clear or continuous plan for effective engagement of the independent sector? The modernisation of hearing services—MHAS—project to equip the NHS with facilities to offer digital hearing aids began in 2003. It included a limited independent sector involvement through a PPP. Although only two independent sector companies were involved, no less than 68,600 patients were fitted with a hearing aid through that PPP until it ended last April. More significantly, it was accepted that the companies' standards in providing fitting and follow-up service matched those of the NHS.
	Despite all the current barriers to its involvement, the independent sector is, of its own volition, making a contribution towards alleviating pressures on waiting lists—for example, by helping to test patients' hearing at their local GP surgery, thus speeding up the initial assessment and referral process. Some PCTs have also involved independent-sector providers in assisting with part of the full patient journey—for example the fitting of an aid and follow-up. But these are piecemeal approaches, wholly dependent on local initiatives and not part of any coherent policy by national government. The independent sector continues to invest in training of hearing aid dispensers who are fully qualified to carry out hearing assessments and fit hearing aids. Yet this significant capacity, a workforce of some 1,400, is virtually ignored in the Government's calculations. Is it not high time to consider a more direct—indeed, a more actively participant—role for the independent sector?
	I invite the Minister and, indeed, the rest of your Lordships to study the evidence given to the Health Select Committee by Specsavers. From that, it is clear that developing a market for directly supplying audiology services financed by the NHS along the lines of the successful optical prescription model would offer the public greatly improved access, choice and quality.
	In summary, the Government's actions do not measure up to the scale of the problem. The Department of Health seems unable to ensure that the NHS works in partnership with the independent sector to develop a sustainable national audiology service. Consequently demand cannot be met and patients continue to suffer. I end by quoting the closing paragraph of the BSHAA report, Suffering in Silence2007, which states:
	"BSHAA has for some time said it is puzzled why the Government does not recognise that the independent hearing care sector on the high street has the skill and expertise necessary to help solve the waiting list problem",
	and,
	"offer patients real choice; choice of location, choice of time, choice of instrument, choice of dispenser and even choice of how many and which hearing aid they have fitted".
	I am much looking forward to this debate and, in particular, to hearing from the Minister when and how the Government will open the door that will enable us to start proceeding down the road that I have described.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, we owe the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, our plaudits for setting up this debate on a topic that is unjustifiably low-profile in our thinking. It would be hard to dispute that audiology is one of the Cinderella areas of the NHS. This in some part reflects widespread cultural attitudes towards hearing loss in our society. If someone goes blind, it is universally regarded as a tragedy, but even people whose problems are of being very hard of hearing can be regarded with scorn, mirth and derision which is surely inapplicable, given the scale of the issues that we face in this area.
	A recent study of the baby boomers generation in the US concluded:
	"The reality is that hearing loss has a long way to go before it is considered a legitimate public health issue".
	I would suggest that the same applies in this country, too. That is pretty amazing when one considers the facts. According to the same study, 25 per cent of the baby-boom generation—people between 50 and 60 years old—suffer from serious noise-induced hearing loss, in addition to hearing loss brought about by ageing processes. Some observers in America have spoken of a hearing health epidemic and I do not think that that is an overstatement.
	The issue is not just that people can be incapacitated in their everyday lives, but it can also have a significant impact on their work and capability to work. We live in a service-based society in which we spend most of our working days interacting with other people. Many kinds of jobs can be impossible for people who do not get effective assistance in such a situation.
	The other side of this issue is a tremendous and continuing wave of innovation in hearing-aid technology and, more generally, in technologies linked to those who are either deaf or seriously hearing impaired. At the cutting edge of this technology is nanotechnology; on the commercial market there is already a hearing device available which can be implanted, is invisible to the external observer and has a battery life of some five years. Tremendous technological revolutions are going on.
	When I read the Government's document, Improving Access to Audiology Services in England, and their response to the House of Commons Select Committee report, I felt that I was living in 1948 rather than 2008. I give three reasons for this: one is that digital aids were not introduced into the NHS until 2001, in spite of the fact that they existed for many years previously, although, of course, they were improving radically. That raises the issue of whether what is going on in the intersection between the NHS and the private sector is really at the leading edge of technological developments. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, no reliable data are collected, or has been collected to date, on the wait between GP referral and treatment. As I understand it, the Government have now committed themselves to collecting that data. That is clearly a serious lapse. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness also said, the survey by the RNID found that many trusts had very long waiting times. This was based on a sample, rather than a universal survey, so to some extent it was guesswork. Like her, I picked up the case of Kingston, where there is a wait of 2.5 years, which translates into 125 weeks.
	I have four questions for the Minister, which she might answer directly or subsequently. First, is this figure of 2.5 years for Kingston health trust valid? Is it really true? It seems quite incredible. Secondly, the person choosing open-ear technology today, and who goes privately, can get tested and fitted not only in one day, but within one hour of going to the practitioner. Yet the Government document says proudly that the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, using open-fit technology, has seen treatment waiting times drop from 28 weeks to 21 weeks. Could the Minister explain this yawning discrepancy? Thirdly, as the noble Baroness has said, surely there must be must more effective ways of integrating the public and private sectors. She mentioned the case of opticians, where there is indeed very little waiting—where, because of technological innovation, you can get a pair of glasses within an hour. Here again the Government seem to have made only modest progress, especially in relation to the target that was also mentioned. According to the calculations I saw, only 116,000 people have been treated under a PPP arrangement. Fourthly, in his speech the other day, the Prime Minister rightly put an emphasis on prevention, rather than simply treatment. What are the Government doing in the area of prevention? It is not just the baby-boom generation who went to rock concerts; it is also the under-25 generation using iPods. A recent French study calculated that one in 10 of such users will have hearing deficiencies within two years, because they use these devices almost every day, and they play them at much too high volumes. Surely, prevention should be moved massively up the Government's agenda.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Howe for instigating this important debate. Her introduction demonstrated that she is certainly an expert in the field.
	Hearing impairment is the most common sensory disability worldwide. Although deafness and loss of hearing are more common in the elderly population, many children and young people are also affected, with potentially devastating results on the development of language, communication and learning. There are estimates that in the UK, one in 1,000 children is deaf at the age of three. Currently, a staggering 17 per cent of the population have some deafness. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, in the younger age group that is likely to rise almost exponentially because of the sound technology they use on a daily basis. There are 20,000 children aged 15 and under who suffer from a degree of deafness, and 12,000 of them were born deaf.
	Sufferers of deafness often experience isolation and depression. When deafness is of sudden onset, it is particularly devastating. The person with sudden onset deafness suddenly loses all orientation. Crossing the road or even pursuing activities in the home becomes incredibly hazardous. Even those with progressive deafness may find that they cannot pursue their previous employment, or find that employment opportunities wither, as their lives rapidly become narrower and more cut off. They are often acutely aware that their potential contribution to society is being wasted and that they cannot enjoy the same quality of life as they did when they had hearing or as those with good hearing can.
	Two million people in the UK currently use a hearing aid, but it is estimated that a further 4 million might benefit from one. The Government are to be commended on their commitment to reducing waiting times for digital hearing aids. They certainly have recognised the failure of many PCTs to give audiology services the priority they deserve. To address this, the Audiology Advisory Board, chaired most capably by Professor Sue Hill, has produced the National Audiology Action Plan. But I would ask the Minister whether the current referral-to-treatment waiting time for a hearing aid has improved at all. Is the target of providing a diagnostic test for audiology within six weeks likely to be reached by its target date of March this year, since last year's 13-week target was not met on time?
	Hearing loss does not occur in isolation. The associated vestibular disorders cause dizziness, vertigo, nausea, fatigue and sometimes tinnitus and, sadly, they are commonly misunderstood both by the public and by healthcare professionals. These symptoms represent the most common reason for GP visits by patients over 65, and indeed 40 per cent of the UK population aged over 40 have experienced symptoms of dizziness and/or imbalance.
	Let us make no mistake: the aftercare of those receiving an NHS hearing aid is inferior. After receiving an NHS aid, a patient will receive one phone call to assess whether problems are being experienced with the aid. If a hearing aid is purchased privately, the patient is able to arrange a personal consultation at a place of his own convenience, as stipulated in clause 11 of the Hearing Aid Council code of practice.
	However, I hope that no one will be fooled into thinking that providing a hearing aid is the answer to issues around deafness. There is a real and urgent need for an increase in training numbers in audiological medicine if we are to cope cost-effectively with the increasing numbers of people with audio-vestibular disorders who will otherwise continue to be referred to the wrong NHS resources where their problem becomes compounded by inappropriate investigations and wrong treatments. Currently, services are variously provided by ENT surgeons, audio-vestibular physicians, audiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, paediatricians, physiotherapists and so on, depending on the complaint and the availability of professionals in that area, frequently determined by staffing levels and the equipment infrastructure. The majority of patients are referred to ENT and to neurology, even though only 5 per cent of hearing and balance disorders require surgical intervention or result from central nervous system pathology.
	I know that the "good practice" documents produced following on from the framework are supported by the commissioning of 18-week patient care pathways, and there are other audiology transformation projects on education and training of the workforce and on the development of a workforce tool and a quality assessment tool. But all those require the availability of expertise to underpin them. Nationally, however, only a handful of services are able to provide state of the art, sophisticated auditory and vestibular investigations that patients need for accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of their deafness and other problems. Unfortunately, much time and effort is therefore wasted on inappropriate or unnecessary and expensive investigations and referrals. With an ageing population, these problems are going to get greater. Provision of a hearing aid is only part of the management.
	We need an increase in specialist medical audiology without which we risk more money being spent inappropriately. Hand in hand with that goes a requirement for more national specialist facilities too. The need for a rapid expansion in such services of expertise also puts an onus on the profession itself. Currently the training in audiological medicine is far too long. I ask the Minister what discussions have been had with the royal colleges to streamline and bring down the time spent training.
	I am grateful for this debate, and I am pleased that the Government have demonstrated a commitment, but we have a long way to go.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for initiating this very important debate. Few things are potentially more isolating than the onset of deafness, and I fully endorse the picture of need painted by my noble friend Lord Giddens and the importance of placing priority on this service. Like many of us I have been with my family over Christmas, and I was reminded anew of the crucial role that audiology equipment plays in warding off that isolation. My eldest brother, a farmer, has acute respiratory disease and is now entirely dependent on oxygen. There is little that you can do when you are so breathless, so enjoyment with other people becomes all the more important. However, the one chance that his wife had to relax with him, watching television in the evening, was made excruciating by his increasing deafness. He needed the volume at such a level that it caused her acute pain, so they ended up spending the evening in separate rooms. A simple piece of radio equipment has solved that—he listens through headphones and she can have the volume at her usual level—and they enjoy the evenings together again.
	Sadly, that piece of equipment is not as well known as it should be; it would probably have reduced the tension in hundreds of households this Christmas. By contrast, the introduction of digital hearing aids has received wide publicity and become a victim of its own success. Given the history, it is hardly surprising that there are currently an estimated 250,000 people waiting for a free digital hearing aid.
	Before 2000, the wearers of digital aids would have had to buy them for £2,000 or more. The NHS audiology clinics fitted only the outdated analogue aids and were chronically underfunded. The outstanding campaign by the RNID resulted in the unique partnership between government, the voluntary and independent sectors, and the modernising hearing aid services programme produced, in the RNID's own words, the complete transformation of the service in less than five years.
	More recently, the RNID has highlighted the unacceptably long waiting lists that still exist. Its latest figures revealed a shocking situation in some parts of the country, the worst, as we have heard, being in Kingston. But what is in danger of being overlooked is the fact that we are talking about pockets of poor provision. It is not the national picture. In fact, nationally there has been an enormous improvement and, while the unacceptably long waiting lists should and must be eliminated, the successes should be recognised and praised.
	My local audiology department at Charing Cross Hospital is held up as an example for others to follow. That department's reaction to the publicity given to the RNID's figures was that it was grossly unfair. In its opinion, the figures do not reflect the overall reduction in waiting times, which have reduced radically. According to the Department of Health's figures, last October roughly 80,000 people were waiting for an audiology diagnostic assessment; a year earlier, in November 2006, the figure was double that, at more than 166,000. Of these, roughly 47,000 had been waiting for more than a year, whereas last October this figure had been reduced to 13,000. Yes, that is still far too many, but the picture is not a uniform one. The staff at Charing Cross felt kicked in the teeth for all the hard work that their profession had undertaken over the past few years. They deny the description of Charing Cross as an "elite service"; in their judgment, theirs is a normal service, just hard working.
	However, Charing Cross is worried by the draft tariff—the indicative tariff—which has been introduced to audiology services for the first time this year. It believes that trusts will struggle to deliver at the current tariff rate and that, as a result, waiting times are bound to increase. Its main concerns are that the tariff is too low to cover the actual costs, that it does not reflect regional variations in the cost of provision and that it does not provide for the ongoing maintenance of hearing aids or for post-fitting adult rehabilitation. Nor is there provision for people who need bilateral aids—aids for both ears. Charing Cross fears that, at the current rate, the tariff will lead to increased contracting of independent sector provision at an inferior level of service. The head of department said:
	"If an independent sector company can provide a patient journey for the current tariff rate I would have serious concerns about the quality of that service; there will certainly be no money left for the shareholders if the job is done by a fully qualified audiologist".
	She provides the example of a current contract with a well known independent sector provider in Darlington, who charges £320 for a unilateral fit—I understand that that is not best practice—which is £90 higher than the NHS draft tariff.
	The Health Select Committee's report last May into audiology services highlighted its concerns about increased use of private sector provision and in particular its belief that there should be careful monitoring of the quality of care and that the private sector must not be allowed to undermine the capacity of the NHS to provide expert audiology services. I do not have time to go into these in detail, but I ask the Minister to assure the House that the Select Committee's concerns will be acted on. Will she also assure me that the Department of Health will take on board the serious concerns that have been expressed about the level of the draft tariff? In reality, the audiology service is very cheap for the life-changing results that it achieves. Will she do all that she can to ensure that the Government build on its successes and not allow the service to deteriorate?

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the noble Lady to express the importance of audiology services and the need for greater priority to be given to them. Like many families, our family has its own sentences and catchphrases, which express our togetherness and which would be quite impossible for others to understand. In our family, most of them stem from a favourite grandmother, who was very deaf. She had a hearing aid—a huge orange thing that she held in tissue paper in the sideboard draw—which was kept for special occasions, although I must confess that I never witnessed such an occasion. Invariably in conversation, she used to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. Her wonderful non sequiturs have provided our family with endless amusement, although sometimes with a degree of annoyance.
	As well as bequeathing to us these bon mots, our grandmother also bequeathed to me a genetic component that makes me very deaf. About 12 years ago, I began to realise that this was becoming a real disability, when the work that I was doing brought me to spend a lot of time with people for whom English was not their first language. I found conversation very difficult. I went to the local hospital and had, I have to say, a rather perfunctory test, after which I was given a hearing aid that amplified sound but did not clarify speech. I found it impossible to use. I was encouraged by a friend to go to a private clinic, where I had a test that was much more carefully done. I discovered that the kind of disability that I have relates to the middle range of sound, which means that I find it difficult to distinguish consonants in speech. If noble Lords remember some of those wonderful sketches that Ronnie Barker used to do, in which he had "trouble with worms" and kept getting his consonants mixed up, they will be able to appreciate some of the difficulties that I was having.
	I believe that people who do not have hearing loss find it hard to appreciate what it means for those who do. I find it impossible to have a conversation on the telephone with my grandchildren. I can speak but I cannot hear what they are saying to me. Also on the telephone, when I have to get through to some officialdom and find that I am in a call centre, it is almost impossible to find communication between us and if I say to them, "I am deaf, will you speak slowly?", they cannot resist the temptation to shout at me, which does not help at all. I find it difficult and almost impossible to eat with your Lordships at the long table in the dining room. I find it difficult to have a conversation with someone who is sitting alongside me. I need to see you in order to hear you. People leave voicemail messages and they think they have communicated with me but they have not done it clearly enough for me to be able even to hear who it is who has left the message, which causes quite a lot of embarrassment. I attend receptions and I do an awful lot of nodding and smiling and find that sometimes I have agreed to opinions I do not hold or even volunteered to do something I did not intend to do because I have not actually heard what was being said.
	Hearing loss isolates, puts people at a disadvantage and damages confidence but it can be helped and the hearing aids that I now have do help. The first step, as other people have said, is to admit that there is a problem, and this is something that people find difficult. I have heard on more occasions than I can think of about people who say when they sit at the back of the church that the problem is that preachers are not trained to project their voices properly and refuse to admit that the problem might be within them. There is growing acceptance that help is available, and greater acceptance about the sophistication of the instruments which can help, but the capacity for dealing with the problem has not kept up with the expressed need. Only a year or two ago my nearest hospital was reporting that there were 22,000 people on its waiting list, and as has been said, there have been reports of waiting times of between 84 and 92 weeks in parts of the south-east. When we finally get round to admitting to a problem, the problem has to be diagnosed properly and quickly.
	Where is the first port of call? When our eyesight fails we are used to going to a high street optician. Although we can be referred on from there if there is a health need, we can usually be provided for fairly quickly at a level which is appropriate to our financial ability, either with an NHS prescription or with very expensive designer frames. Many people find it easier to access the high street than to obtain an appointment with their GP and wait for a referral to a hospital, only to find that the waiting lists are long and the clinic is overstretched. The experience of using private practice must give some insight into the kind of opportunities made possible by using a mixture of private and NHS provision, not only in getting an appointment and finding an aid but in obtaining aid maintenance and repair and the provision of batteries, which is so often a source of irritation to so many people.
	Hearing loss is not life threatening but the provision of aids is extremely life enhancing, not only for those with hearing loss but for all those who have to associate with them. It does not entail huge budget implications compared with the benefits to mental and social well-being. More help can be given. We need a clear insight into where the bottlenecks are and why they exist; an increase in audiology staff—I understand that there are more trained staff but that they are not being used effectively; a willingness to explore creative partnership with the private sector; and, above all, a commitment to a national programme.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and thank her most sincerely for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I do so for a particular reason. For over 60 years my mother has been profoundly deaf and she has been wholly dependent on the NHS for her lifeline—her hearing aids. That experience of growing up as the hearing child of a deaf person who lives in a hearing world with the TV turned up too loud and all that kind of stuff has had a profound effect on me. I shall give one example: most people my age can tell you all about "Doctor Who"—who played the Doctor, his assistants, and all that. In my house, "Doctor Who" consisted of the first three bars of that rasping, tinny music and an adult shouting, "Turn that noise off now", as it cut through my mum's ears. I know nothing about "Doctor Who"—I am scarred for life.
	I shall tell my mother's story briefly as it illustrates some important points. When I was little there was one clinic for the whole of the west of Scotland, where my mum used to go to get her batteries and cords. It was the same thing when we moved to Lancashire; she used to go to social services. She managed to get along with a pretty inferior system. During that time a friend died and in an act of generosity his family gave my mum his very expensive, private, behind-the-ear hearing aid, but it did not work. It was not until we moved to another place that, when she came under the audiology department of a district general hospital, on her first appointment somebody said, "We need to do a complete audiogram". Because technology had changed and much more powerful behind-the-ear hearing aids were available, she finally got one. The change that it made to her, her confidence and her interaction with other people was phenomenal.
	In the intervening period we as a family have gone through times when her hearing aid has not worked or she has not been very well, and we have appreciated the fact that she is getting older. She was told a while ago that she was getting old, that the nerves and so on in her ears were deteriorating and that she would not be able to hear any better. That was profoundly depressing for her and for all of us. Then there was a change, and last year she finally got a digital hearing aid. I asked her last week what it was like and she said that, apart from the relief of not having an inevitable descent into further deafness, she can hear things that she has never heard before. It may not be the biggest thing in the world, but to be able to differentiate noises is huge. In her words, it makes being in company altogether easier.
	The point that I wish to make was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. When the Government count the cost of audiology services, they should include the savings made by people being able to continue working and to live independently without incurring caring costs.
	We are in danger of going back to a fracturing of services rather than drawing them together. While that may be fine for somebody who has a slight hearing loss, who is young or familiar with technology and who can go to a private service, there will be those who are older and who have multiple conditions. They may be arthritic and cannot see very well and they are presented with a minute piece of machinery. They then panic because they do not know how to use it. It is important to note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that maintenance and aftercare are an enormous part of a proper audiology service. The concentration on recording data, not just at the point of assessment but right through to fitting and beyond, to see how the person is living with a newly acquired deaf condition, is important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, is right that we need to recognise that, as technology develops, the private and voluntary sectors have an enormous role to play in enabling deaf people to keep up with technological changes and go on with their lives more confidently. There needs to be coherence. Ophthalmology and optical services have changed by their reliance on there being a very good system of referral between the different parts—the voluntary sector, societies for the blind, the private sector and the NHS. That has enabled routine maintenance of people's conditions to be contracted out to technicians, which has left precious specialist resources in ophthalmology—the same could be said for audiology—to be focused on those who really need them. I worry that, with the new system of commissioning from PCTs, we might be in danger of going back 40 years to when there was no coherence in provision, and deaf people will suffer as a result.
	I shall abuse my position and say this: for those who are on tremendously long waiting lists—they are long in some places because PCTs do not have the resources—the RNID runs a telephone hearing check system. It wants more people to know about it; there is a telephone number on its website. Those people who are beginning to suffer can do something even if the NHS in their area is not particularly good.

Earl Howe: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has homed in on an extremely important topic, and I congratulate her on the case that she so ably presented. None of us should underestimate the social isolation and sheer human misery that deafness brings to large numbers of individuals in this country. The noble Baroness conveyed the scale of the issue. By any standards we are dealing with a major source of preventable disability.
	The story of NHS audiology over the last eight years is an interesting one. In my view the Government are entitled to claim considerable credit for the decision they took in 2003 to roll out NHS provision of digital hearing aids across the whole country. That really did represent a quantum leap forward for many tens of thousands of people in terms of their quality of life. Unfortunately, as has been said, the very success of the MHAS programme sowed the seeds of the difficulties we are now experiencing. The benefits of digital hearing aids suddenly became more widely appreciated, demand for them shot up, and the NHS found itself without the capacity to cope. Indeed, audiology contains a paradigm of what has happened to the NHS as a whole since 1948. It is a classic instance of where an ageing population, improved technology and rising consumer expectations have combined to drive up demand for healthcare. If one were being critical of the Government, one could say that someone ought to have predicted this. As it is, there is not much indication that in 2003 anyone actually sat down to assess what capacity the NHS needed to meet future demand for audiology services in the short or medium term.
	The result is what we see today: long average waiting times, as cited by the noble Baroness, to have a digital hearing aid fitted and of course, as we have heard, the average numbers conceal a huge variation between best and worst in different areas of the country. The target of a 13-week maximum wait between referral and assessment was meant to have been achieved last March but was missed by a wide margin. The six-week target, which is supposed to be met by March 2008, seems unattainable within that timeframe.
	I say "unattainable" not simply in the light of the published figures but because of the numbers of people waiting whom the figures do not include. Those people waiting for a reassessment to see whether they need a digital hearing aid are only included in the official waiting list once a review has taken place to establish whether they might benefit from being reassessed. How many people are currently waiting to be reviewed in this way, and does the Minister not think that that hidden element of the waiting list makes the six-week target rather misleading?
	The obvious way forward is for the NHS to draw upon the spare capacity that exists within the private sector. The problem here is that if you use the private sector there has to be demonstrable value for money, and how can you verify value for money unless you have a national tariff? A tariff is the only way there is to assess price comparability between different suppliers, yet there are very mixed messages emanating from Ministers about whether they see this as something that should be developed. The strategy document of last March simply said that the department would consider the introduction of a tariff as soon as practicable. I need therefore to ask the Minister what is happening here and whether the introduction of a national tariff is now seen as a priority.
	Could I also ask the Minister about priority treatment for war pensioners? As from 1 January, all war veterans became entitled to priority access to NHS secondary care for any conditions which are likely to be related to their service, subject to the clinical needs of all patients. This could present a difficulty in relation to hearing loss. In the context of applying for a war pension, veterans have had to meet quite a high threshold of hearing loss—50 decibels in both ears—to be deemed eligible. For priority treatment on the NHS, on the other hand, the threshold is bound to be a lot lower, and we could well see a backlog of cases—perhaps as many as 100,000 according to the RNID—coming forward for priority treatment for deafness caused by service. What impact is that likely to have on waiting lists and what specific measures have been taken to ensure that the NHS can meet the potential increase in demand from those patients?
	We are back to the capacity question. Like the noble Baroness, I wonder what happened to the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in July 2006 to source an additional 300,000 patient journeys per annum from the private sector for five years. Is that happening? In their answers to the recommendations of the House of Commons Health Select Committee, the Government admit that they are only now examining in any depth the medium and long-term demand for digital hearing aids and are only now developing a toolkit for workforce planning. Again, only very recently have the Government accepted that official data on referral to treatment times should be collected in relation to hearing aids. Better late than never, but one wonders how any policy decisions have been reached either in Whitehall or in PCTs in the absence of such fundamental information. What is not measured cannot be managed. I hope that the Minister will tell us that better and more detailed information will be the starting point for better and more joined-up policy in this vital area.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for raising this very important issue, which affects the quality of life of a growing number of citizens. I agree that the debate is both necessary and timely, and I am sure that we are all indebted to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Richardson, for their honesty about being deaf. It is very refreshing to hear about the problems confronting people who are deaf. My mother went deaf as she got older but for many years she refused to acknowledge it, and that caused problems for her and for us as a family.
	In their White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say, the Government set out a vision to improve the independence, choice and control of those who receive services. The ability to communicate effectively is absolutely fundamental to achieving that vision, and the ability to hear is vital to the process of communication—an inclusive process. Perhaps for too long, audiology has been a Cinderella service but I can assure noble Lords that it is not a Cinderella service now, and we are working flat out to respond to the demand for improved audiology services.
	Around 1.8 million people have NHS-provided and maintained hearing aids. These include the more recently introduced digital signal processing hearing aids, which have enhanced patient benefits. Those with more profound hearing loss, including children, are obtaining access to new implantable devices, such as bone-anchored hearing aids and cochlear implants. As people get older, they are more likely to develop a degree of hearing impairment, and with more people living longer, the demand on audiology services will continue to increase. The demand for audiology services has also increased because many people who currently use an analogue hearing aid naturally and rightly wish to switch to the improved performance provided by digital hearing aids.
	Recognising the importance of early access to both diagnostic assessment and treatment for hearing difficulties, the Department of Health, as part of its 18-week physiological measurement programme, developed a national action framework for audiology services. From the outset, the department engaged with many key stakeholders to ensure that the process of developing the framework was inclusive. The national audiology framework, Improving Access to Audiology Services in England, was published in March 2007. It set out a programme of work aimed at helping local health systems to transform the experience of the audiology service for all their patients with a vision of delivering high-quality, efficient services closer to patients' homes and responsive to the needs of local communities.
	The framework also set out how the health reform levers could be brought to bear to achieve these aims and the national work that will be undertaken to support the process. It is now 10 months since publication and significant progress has been made—although as demonstrated this evening, clearly not enough progress yet. The number of people having to wait for an audiology assessment has fallen dramatically. A year ago, more than 114,000 patients waited longer than 13 weeks for their assessment. Now this figure has fallen to 34,000 and is still falling. By March 2008, no patient should have to wait longer than six weeks for their assessment.
	The department is actively working with SHAs, PCTs and providers to tackle the current poor performance in some areas of the country. The noble Baroness and others cited the dreadful regional discrepancies and referred specifically to the problems in Kingston. As noble Lords will know, the department does not collect data on waiting times for treatment. However, we are working with the most challenged organisations to get this data and are committed to collecting it nationally by April.
	We are constantly trying to improve the quality of data we collect. We have been working closely with the NHS to look specifically at how long patients wait if they are sent directly from their GP to the audiology service, which is not included in the 18-week target. The NHS is continuing to transfer services making the best use of innovation and new technology. A key example is open-ear technology which does not require individual ear moulds to be produced and provides more comfort, better cosmetic appearance and natural-sounding speech. This technology used in conjunction with digital hearing aids is effective in enabling a significant proportion of patients to be assessed and fitted with a hearing aid in the same appointment.
	Training is currently being rolled out across the NHS to support both widespread adoption of this technology and to enable patients to benefit from treatment as quickly as possible. A patient's pathway has therefore been reduced from five steps to one. This really is progress in the NHS. I know that it has been available in the independent sector for some time but now we have it in the NHS.
	We published the good practice guide Transforming Adult Hearing Services for Patients with Hearing Difficulty in June 2007, which included the introduction of a new care pathway and case studies of NHS service improvements. Our aim is to drive innovative approaches to commissioning and to provision, including those of the independent and third sector, to which I will return.
	We have set up the national Audiology Advisory Board to oversee the implementation of the framework, including representation from a broad range of key stakeholders. Whilst the majority of long waits are for adult hearing services, we are also in the process of developing further guidance for other services provided by audiology departments. We are working with stakeholders such as the National Deaf Children's Society, to develop a new care pathway for children's hearing problems and to embed best practice. We are developing new pathways and best practice guides for balance and vestibular function services, tinnitus and more complex hearing problems.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly referred to the need for more audiologists and to the need for increased numbers and type of training, not just for adult hearing and balance services, but for the whole of the audiology service. We are assessing that now. This will include the need to train GPs better, identify the problems, and communicate with paediatricians as well as audio-vestibular physicians.
	We are training 300 new hearing aid audiologists to respond to the demand from high street hearing care practitioners. They will complete a foundation degree operated as an "earn as you learn" partnership with high street employers. Over two years, this degree programme will combine academic and workplace skills. This links in with the broader Department of Health policy to modernise strategic careers. We are also looking at non-degree-based new career structures for audiologists who can undertake functions for which they do not need a degree. That is rather exciting.
	A workforce toolkit is being developed to support audiology services and profile their workforce to match the services that need to be delivered. This will include a range of e-learning modules to underpin the roll-out of new adult hearing care pathways.
	In order to address the areas that are experiencing the most significant challenges, the Department of Health recently established a transforming audiology services project. The team, working closely with the 18 weeks intensive support team, are working directly with the most challenged local health services and spreading best practice and learning throughout the NHS. That approach will be supplemented by the introduction of a quality monitoring tool to enable audiology services to become self-improving. The impact of the project is already improving performance in these areas. My noble friend Lord Giddens referred to the example of Norfolk and Norwich using open-ear technology and the new model. We have seen overall waiting times fall because of the way in which that trust has moved to assessment and fitting in one appointment. However, it is still trying to get rid of a backlog that developed over a number of years, so there are still long waiting lists in Norwich, but they are dealing with the situation.
	Many noble Lords referred to the need for us to work more closely with the independent sector. Critical to achieving sustainable audiology services is strengthening commissioning capability. The department has established a national audiology commissioners group to look for innovative ways of ensuring that there is appropriate local capacity to deliver. In some instances, that will require procurement from the independent sector working in partnership with local health economies to provide solutions that cater for local requirements. Like patients, we want services in the community, close to home, with effective and efficient follow up. I assure noble Lords that we have effective engagement with the independent sector, but at local rather than national level because we believe that PCTs are best able to identify local needs and capacity. Some PCTs engage with high-street providers, often to provide certain parts of the patient pathway, sometimes in much needed areas such as routine maintenance, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
	The most complex patients under the care of a consultant will be treated within 18 weeks by the end of 2008. The operating framework for the NHS has made clear the priority of delivering 18 weeks this year, and we have made it clear that no organisation will be able to claim credible success in delivery of the 18-weeks target without making excellent progress on reducing long waits, even those waits that are technically outside the target.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about war veterans. While I understand his natural concern, they are not currently seen as a priority by audiology departments.
	In response to the points made about the indicative tariff, specifically the points made about Charing Cross Hospital, the tariff can be agreed locally and cover all aspects of the patient pathway. The national commissioning group, which includes representatives from every SHA, will discuss whether amendments to the tariff are required prior to the publication of the national tariff. I hope that that will address some of the problems that Charing Cross Hospital is anticipating.
	I have not dealt with the problem of prevention, and I will return to that in writing. While I hope that I have been able to outline some of the significant progress that has been made since the publication of the framework, there remains a real challenge if we are to continue to drive down waiting times for audiological assessments and ensure that the six-week milestone is delivered. I should assure the noble Earl that the figures for the assessment of six weeks do include reassessments. Is the target of six weeks by the end of March attainable? Every SHA has guaranteed that it will hit its target, and the Department of Health continues to support the most challenged organisations to do so. I am an optimist, and there is great determination in the department to try to ensure that the target is reached. I trust that this excellent short debate will have acted as a catalyst for those SHAs.

Climate Change Bill [HL]

House again in Committee.
	Clause 13 [Powers to carry amounts from one budgetary period to another]:

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Clause 13, page 7, line 18, leave out "1%" and insert "0.5%"

Earl Cathcart: Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 propose to reduce the amount of carbon units that can be carried back from one period to the preceding budgetary period. That is, the latter period would be reduced so the previous period could be increased. We propose to reduce the amount we are allowed to borrow from the future from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent.
	As we have been saying all along, these are things for the scientists to decide. We have added the proviso in our amendment that this should be done subject to the approval of the climate change committee. Our reduction in the amount that can be used from a future budgetary period is a reflection of the scepticism felt on these Benches for allowing too much leeway in the budgets. Though we appreciate that there are external factors like the weather that might make this so-called banking and borrowing useful to a degree, we want to ensure that the budgets are robust and not pliable, especially under political pressure. I would be interested to hear how the Minister arrived at the figure of 1 per cent. Could he please explain?
	Essentially, failure to meet the budgets will be hidden. This has been one of the motivating factors in many of our amendments. Our historical contributions to global warming could already be considered borrowing from the future. We want to make sure that this ends. I beg to move.

Lord Teverson: I disagree with the noble Earl's amendment. On these Benches we think that we should just simplify the Bill and get rid of Clause 13. My motivation for that is to help the Government's reputation and to save face in the international arena.
	What is this clause about? It concerns small numbers that are there to fudge figures in retrospect. What is the point? By having both the borrowing and the banking mechanism in Clause 13, there are two ways in which targets which have not been met can in retrospect be made to have been met. In doing so, the Government and the UK open themselves to criticism of fixing figures—what is exactly what they would be doing. These mechanisms would be used only if borrowing targets were not met. Why bother to do this with a figure of 1 per cent? Clauses elsewhere in the Bill allow emissions trading and credits, so if there is a problem in this area the Government can buy international credits. We believe these should be restricted, but not excluded. Why then bother to go into this complication of borrowing and banking to fix the figures in retrospect? This area of the Bill can be criticised both within the UK and internationally. It will lead to all sorts of accusations if it is ever used. It is not particularly practical. If the target is missed by 1.1 per cent it cannot be used. Why 1 per cent and not 2 per cent? Why even 0.5 per cent? And if 0.5 per cent, why bother with this mechanism at all? International credits can be bought. That is the way out if there is a real problem with the margin, but it should be done as far ahead as possible.
	On the banking facility, again I would ask what other business or organisation, when it gets ahead of its target, is allowed to carry that lead forward? The answer is that if there is momentum, keep it. These targets are difficult to meet as they are so let us move them forward rather than provide an excuse to backslide during the next budget period. I genuinely feel that the Government are creating a rod for their own back with Clause 13 and that it would be better purely to use international credits if they wish to do so. But at the least they should take out this clause because it leaves them open to the accusation of fudging the figures.

Baroness Northover: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Teverson on this point. There is a real risk that if Governments are allowed to borrow from another year, the temptation will be to do just that; it will be irresistible. Subsequent Governments may then be able to argue that they have been given an impossible task and cannot make up the deficit. For that reason, difficult though greater tightness might be, there has to be that discipline here. I therefore support my noble friend.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lords who have spoken so far because I do see some advantage in having a degree of flexibility to borrow forward and to move on the budget from one year to another. On the point about international credibility, if the Government can act only after having consulted, and therefore effectively on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change—one can assume that they would not act against the advice of the committee—that particular problem is rather less acute than has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I agree with him that half a per cent seems rather small, and I would be inclined to leave it as it is at 1 per cent in order to give the Government the flexibility to respond to unexpected developments such as, for example, those related to the weather.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Again, my remarks will be very brief. I am not intervening on the subject of the difference between half a per cent and 1 per cent, but I recall that when I was the budget Minister in the European Union, we reached a situation where the Parliament would vote the money that was available to be distributed in a particular year absolutely up to the last euro. As a consequence, there was no way we could adjust because it had done deals on every single piece of expenditure. We the British invented the negative reserve, under which we knew perfectly well that not all the money would be spent. We therefore created a negative reserve that gave us enough leeway to be able to negotiate at the closing stage. Money in other parts of the budget would not be spent and it was simply put back into the negative reserve to fill it up so that it would come out flat at the end of the year. So I am all in favour of having an instrument of a modest kind at the margin in order to make such an adjustment—because of the way in which the world works.

Lord Rooker: Although we are dealing with small figures here, I shall kick off by saying that the figure of 1 per cent was not plucked out of thin air, and in the course of my remarks I shall seek to explain where it came from and why it is useful. I am dealing with Amendments Nos. 77 and 78, and thus effectively with Clause 13, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, remarked, so I shall be slightly longer than I was on previous debates.
	The clause ensures that there are strong incentives to over-achieve against budgets and to reduce emissions by more than is necessary. Where this is the case, the surplus emissions may be, but do not have to be, banked for use in the next budget period. The benefits of banking to provide incentives for early action and over-achievement are recognised under the Kyoto Protocol, which also allows for unused emissions rights to be carried forward for future use. We think that this will encourage deeper emissions cuts to be made earlier, which would not be the case if we could not carry forward the savings made by early action. Banking is therefore a good thing in environmental terms because it rewards good behaviour, whether by government, business or other organisations.
	Banking can also help to reduce the costs of mitigation, especially where abatement becomes more expensive over time, while still ensuring that emissions, over the period as a whole, are limited. In the context of the policies designed to establish a carbon price, banking reduces the risk of price spikes or crashes at the end of the budget period. There is some evidence, cited in the Stern review, that allowing banking between phases of the United States Acid Rain Program, for example, helped to deliver early reductions and improved participants' efficiency. This evidence suggested that because of the ability to bank from the first phase into the second, the emissions reduced in phase 1 were twice that required to meet the cap.
	Unlimited banking is allowed for companies operating under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which covers around half of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions. Allowing banking under the Bill ensures that there is no inconsistency between the two systems. Without banking, the risk is that effort will be focused on trying to meet budgets exactly, rather than reducing emissions by more and going beyond the budget. Given the problems of the natural variability of emissions, and the uncertainties over what level of carbon savings will be achieved by many policies, removing banking will also increase the risk of not meeting the targets at all.
	Clause 13 allows borrowing of emissions from the next budget, but only in strictly limited circumstances. This is to help deal with unexpected natural events, such as a particularly cold winter at the end of a budget period, that could otherwise mean a budget or target is missed. Amendment No. 77 would halve the limit on borrowing to 0.5 per cent of the following budget. As I said, the current limit of 1 per cent in the Bill is not a number plucked from thin air. It reflects the likely situation when an unexpected shock towards the end of a budget period would otherwise lead to a risk of missing the budget.
	Analysis suggests that allowing up to 1 per cent of a future budget to be borrowed would be consistent with the rise in emissions that may result during an unexpectedly cold winter, or with the uncertainty around emissions data. There have been three large emission rises due to unexpectedly cold winters since 1990, the coldest of which led emissions in these years to be between 3 and 4 per cent higher than the year before. This effectively means that if 0.8 per cent—that is to say, 4 per cent divided by the five years of the budget period—of the subsequent budget were borrowed, the shock could be absorbed with a 1 per cent limit on borrowing, and the budget would still be met. This would not be the case with a limit set at 0.5 per cent, as Amendment No. 77 proposes.
	Another important source of uncertainty is the time it takes to make sure that the UK emissions figures are completely accurate. Provisional figures for emissions in the final year of the budget period will be available shortly after the period ends. These figures are generally accurate to within a few percentage points, but the final confirmed emissions figures are not available until later. Again, if the emissions figures for the last year of the budget period were to be revised upwards by this amount, as the period had already ended, the Government's options would be incredibly limited.
	One option available to the Government following the end of a budget period is to buy international credits from the carbon market. As we discussed earlier, there are concerns within the House about this. The 1 per cent limit is therefore considered the most appropriate approach in providing a small degree of flexibility to smooth emissions across budget periods but, crucially, without undermining the clarity and certainty that the budget system as a whole provides. I have given an example of realistic figures from cold winters since 1990. We have an example where we can deploy the figures.
	I turn to Amendment No. 78, which would require approval from the Committee on Climate Change.

Lord Teverson: I do not think the Minister is correct. The EU ETS is a trading system not a target system. Article 13 of directive 2003/87/EC, which set up the EU ETS, specifically states under "Validity of allowances":
	"Four months after the beginning of the first five-year period referred to in Article 11(2), allowances which are no longer valid and have not been surrendered"—
	that is, used—
	"and cancelled in accordance with Article 12.3"—
	which concerns trading—
	"shall be cancelled by the competent authority".
	You can over a one-year period use trading, but over a five-year period—and we are talking about five-year budget periods within this context—you cannot transfer certificates under the EU ETS from phase 1 to phase 2.

Lord Rooker: I hope I have got this right. I shall take advice if I have not. I was working within the five-year budget but I also mentioned that if you come to the end of that budget period and you do not receive the figures until long afterwards, the options are limited because the five-year budget period has ended. The 1 per cent is within the five-year period and, as I understand it, we are not planning to go from one budget period to another. But I shall take advice on that.

Lord Teverson: The supposition was that it was the equivalent of borrowing under the EU ETS and that certificates under that scheme remain valid. They do between individual years but they certainly do not between five-year periods, which are the different phases of the EU ETS. So they are cancelled; you cannot bank between phases of the EU ETS.

Lord Rooker: I am not saying that we are going to go over from one budget to another. We are in agreement with that. As I understand what I have put before the Committee, I was dealing with the five-year period of a budget but not going over from budget 1 to budget 2—that is, from the first five years to the second five years. That would be a problem. I promise to write because I am probably going to get the figures wrong but, as I understand it, there is no difference between us. That is why I made the point that if the emissions in the last year of a budget period—that is, a five-year period—were revised upwards by an amount because of an exceptionally cold winter, if the period had already ended the options would be incredibly limited for the Government because we would be in the next budget period. As I understand it, the implication is that we would not go over from one budget to another. Effectively, what you have got has to be contained within the budget period, which is exactly what the noble Lord is saying in regard to the trading system.
	Amendment No. 78 requires approval from the Committee on Climate Change before either borrowing or banking and effectively confers powers on the committee which are beyond what we consider appropriate. We believe it is for the committee to advise and for the Government to take decisions—a theme which I have followed throughout the Bill—and Amendment No. 78 would change this relationship. Our view is that ultimately the decision as to whether to use the banking or borrowing provisions should rest with the Government of the day given the importance of the decisions on other factors within the Government's gift, including economic competitiveness, fiscal policy and policy delivery. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn and Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
	I have received a note which it will probably be helpful to explain before I write to the noble Lord. You cannot bank between phase 1 and phase 2—that is, between 2005-07 and 2008-12—because phase 1 is a preparatory phase. From phase 2 onwards you can bank between the periods. So there is a difference there but I will write and clarify that point.

Lord Teverson: As the noble Lord will be aware, the scheme post 2012 has not yet been agreed so we do not know what the situation is. There has not been a European decision over the scheme so I think that is probably unlikely.

Lord Rooker: I am not going to argue with the noble Lord—he knows more about this than I do—but my note says that from phase 2 onwards you can bank between periods. Presumably there have been some initial discussions within the EU on this.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Am I right in assuming that everybody else will be covered with a copy of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson?

Lord Rooker: It goes without saying; therefore, it is always best to say it. Yes, naturally, those who have participated in the debate will receive a copy of the letter.

Earl Cathcart: That was all very interesting. Amendment No. 77, which would have replaced "1%" with "0.5%", was a probing amendment to see what the reasoning behind the figure was. That still needs some clarification when we receive the letter.
	I was interested to hear the Minister speak of the benefits of the "banking and borrowing". It was a useful debate. The Minister's response regarding the committee in relation to Amendment No. 78 was not surprising. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 77.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Final statement for budgetary period]:
	[Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Clause 14, page 7, line 36, after first "of" insert "domestic"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My two amendments are concerned to discover the Government's intention for the final statement. Noble Lords will remember our being very concerned during the first few days of Committee that international credits might disguise a failure on the part of the UK to reduce its carbon emissions at all or only minimally, and that we might end up buying many international credits to fulfil our targets. The amendment would therefore have the final statement make clear just how much of the target will have been achieved through domestic reductions and how much will have been achieved through international reductions. It is important that the final statement for each budgetary period makes that plain.
	The Minister has already promised in principle to look at international emissions, for which we are very grateful, but there is still some work to be done on the information that is to be offered to the public in each budgetary period. What has been achieved in the UK and what has been achieved externally to the UK, but which counts towards its emissions, must be made absolutely plain. I beg to move.

Earl Cathcart: We understand that the amendment would change the wording of what is to be required in the final statement for budgetary periods. Where the Bill states that the report must state the final amount of,
	"UK emissions, UK removals and net UK emissions of that gas",
	the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would change it to state,
	"domestic UK emissions, UK domestic removals, and UK financed international and net UK emissions".
	The goal is unclear.
	Will there be a way of determining in the report precisely where foreign credits are coming from? Surely that could be a matter for private companies to decide. If one of the arguments for trading internationally is to help subsidise green energy in underdeveloped countries, is there any way of knowing whether that is happening? Will the Minister explain his idea of precisely what the report would outline and in what detail?

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in principle. I spoke earlier about the importance of keeping the international credits to a reasonable limit to ensure that we really do drive the decarbonisation of the UK economy. Anything that can provide that degree of transparency should be commended.

Lord Rooker: Again, I come before you in answering this debate on Clause 14 to refer to another clause that we have not yet reached. Clause 14 clearly separates out information on activity within the UK and activity overseas. Clause 14(2) requires the Secretary of State to report on UK emissions, UK removals, and net UK emissions for each greenhouse gas included within the budget. The terms used in Clause 14 are all defined in Clause 24, which makes it clear that they are referring only to activities which take place within the UK's borders. The proposal to add "domestic" to Clause 14 would not add anything to these existing provisions, and is therefore redundant.
	The Bill also allows the Government to count activity overseas to reduce emissions or enhance removals towards the UK's budgets. However, this is the case only if these activities are backed up by carbon units. The country which financed the activities is not relevant; it is where the carbon units end up which matters. Clause 14(3) already requires the Secretary of State to report on the use of carbon units during the budget period and to describe the number and types used. There is therefore already a clear separation in Clause 14 between domestic activity and overseas activity, which is the nub of the argument. We fully accept that—there is no distinction between us on this matter. However, the amendments do not add to this clear separation and, in fact, their effect is to confuse the defined terms and concepts used in the Bill. If one rewrites the clause with the amendments as they would change it, it becomes incredibly confusing and tortuous. The amendments are simply not required. There is a clear separation between the activities in he UK and overseas, and the definitions to cover ourselves are in Clause 24.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept that Clause 24 gives definitions, but the Minister spoke of UK activity, which could be taken to mean financial as well as emissions-reducing activity. I fully accept that the wording that my amendment produces might be confusing, but we have a job to do to make absolutely clear what is what. The other confusion that arises when you start to look at Clause 24 is between carbon reductions and other greenhouse gas reductions. I am sure that when we get to that clause the Minister will explain that more fully, but I am very concerned that the public should be able clearly to see that distinction. We are back to the old thing that we talked about before—that it would be so much easier to describe things with a graph.
	I accept what the Minister says and would be interested in coming back to the matter, possibly at Report through different amendments to Clause 24, addressing the issue of overseas emissions being absolutely not included in any description of what the UK has achieved in reductions.

Lord Rooker: In advance of reaching Clause 24, I am quite happy to give a commitment that we will look again at the clarity of the definitions in Clause 24 to obviate the need for the noble Baroness to come back on that. I cannot promise that that will happen at Committee stage, but I may have something more useful to say when we get there. To that extent we will certainly consider the issues that she raised, but not in Clause 14.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which I very much welcome, because, with all the expertise that he has at his fingertips, he will undoubtedly come up with something much better than I could. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]

Earl Cathcart: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Clause 14, page 8, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) It must—
	(a) state the final amount of carbon units that have been credited to or debited from the net carbon account for each of the national authorities for the period, and(b) give details of the number and type of those carbon units."

Earl Cathcart: The complexities in the Bill concerning national authorities extend to the reporting procedures as well. The amendment would make it a duty to include in the final budgetary statements the net carbon account for each of the national authorities for the period and to give details of the number and type of those carbon units.
	As was mentioned previously, this Bill which affects the entire United Kingdom in terms of its framework and targets will require implementation on some levels by the devolved authorities, because many of the issues that must be regulated to have any impact on climate change are devolved powers. Thus, to give us a more complete picture of our progress, we on these Benches feel that it is important to include a breakdown of the net carbon accounts for each of the national authorities. The way in which the budget is measured will still be based on a UK aggregate. However, we feel that it would be advantageous to include the devolved authorities in the carbon-reporting procedure. It would increase transparency and provide insight into the make-up of the net UK-wide carbon account. I beg to move

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before I decide whether or not I am at all minded to support this amendment, what different types of carbon unit can there be? Subparagraph (b) talks of details of the,
	"type of those carbon units".
	I do not understand what they are.

Earl Cathcart: I think that the Minister said that there were different types—

Lord Rooker: No, no; with respect, the amendment—your amendment—refers to different types of carbon unit. I would be interested to hear the answer myself.

Earl Cathcart: I shall write to you.

Lord Rooker: I do not want to make a cheap point, because I am very conscious of the fact that in the past quarter of an hour I may have used the term "different carbon units". I am not certain whether I did, but the fact is that we are discussing Amendment No. 85, it does not have my name on it and I do not have to answer any questions about it.
	I remind noble Lords that all of the provisions in the Bill have been agreed with the devolved Administrations. That is my starting point. The statements under Clause 14 will provide all the information necessary to determine whether the Secretary of State has met the budget for that period—that is, whether the net UK carbon account does not exceed the budget.
	The Clause 14 report will provide information only on the amount of carbon units which have been credited to or debited from the net UK carbon account. Under the Bill, the duty to meet budgets rests with the Secretary of State alone and it is the Secretary of State alone who has a net carbon account. The devolved Administrations do not have net carbon accounts under the Bill, so it is not clear what information the Secretary of State would be expected to provide as a result of this amendment. The provisions of the Bill have been agreed with the devolved Administrations. As many aspects of climate change policy are devolved, it would be perfectly possible for the devolved Administrations to bring forward their own legislation to tackle climate change, within the scope of their competence. That needs to be said, too. The Administrations have agreed the terms of the Bill, but within the rules and protocols relating to devolution, they are perfectly able to bring forward legislation if they wish. However, the net carbon account holder is the Secretary of State alone.

Lord Teverson: I suggest that the different carbon units are probably the two Kyoto mechanism ones, the joint implementation units—the clean development mechanism units and also the EUTS. They are sometimes seen as having a different level of validity in terms of their effectiveness and how well they have been audited. I suspect that is probably what the noble Earl refers to.

The Duke of Montrose: I am interested in the Minister's reply on the relationship with the devolved Administrations. It sounds to me not as if the Minister is going to be not at the mercy of the devolved Administrations, but as if the devolved Administrations are going to set their own targets for saving carbon emissions and buying carbon credits. The Minister will be left to make up the difference, or set the targets, in whatever way seems wisest to him—but it will be after the devolved Administrations have come to him and told him what they plan to do.

Lord Rooker: I have just found the phrase. I did use the phrase—in fact, it is in the Bill. On the last line of page 7, paragraph (b) states,
	"give details of the number and type of those carbon units".
	So there is a delineation there of the type of carbon units, but I do not think that relates to the amendment.
	On devolution, I suspect that there will be other debates on this. I have nothing further to say in this debate. The reality is that this Bill has been agreed with the devolved Administrations, but many of the policy areas are devolved matters.

Earl Cathcart: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for coming to my rescue and saving me a letter, and I thank the Minister for clarifying his position. It seemed to us that it would be very useful to have an indication of how the devolved Administrations are coming to terms with, and helping to achieve, the UK target—which ones are pulling their weight and which ones are not. The essence was to give us a breakdown of which of the four areas of the United Kingdom were responding favourably, and which not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Final statement for 2050]:
	[Amendments Nos. 88 to 93 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Alteration of carbon budgets]:
	[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Consultation on alteration of carbon budgets]:

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 95:
	Clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "three months from the date on which the Committee's advice was sent to the authority."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We have moved so fast, I am almost dizzy. We are now at Clause 17, and this, too, covers the devolved authorities and the way in which the Bill is going to work in this area. I will speak also to Amendment No. 96.
	I turn first to Amendment No. 95. The reasons for altering carbon budgets will vary from the blindingly obvious to the more abstruse. The advice will appear at any time of the year and could reach national authorities at the start of a holiday period, such as Christmas or during the summer. Moreover, any changes need not be based equally in each part of the United Kingdom. Some national authorities may have greater difficulty in assessing their validity and local effects. The climate change committee will contain experts carefully chosen to represent the various branches of relevant knowledge, experience and expertise. The national authorities will be entitled and may feel obliged to consult similar specialists outside the committee. In such circumstances, there may be occasions when a one-month response time limit is unreasonable.
	Clause 17 is entitled, "Consultation on alteration of carbon budgets". The title and the wording of the clause suggest that the Secretary of State will know some considerable time in advance that a change is likely and presumably the reasons why. It seems probable that he and his staff will also know the scope of any advice before it is published to the other national authorities. In other words, he and his staff will have rather more time than those others to adjust, to plan and to revise arrangements for measuring, monitoring and reporting. The existence of a three-month statutory deadline does not mean that national authorities must take three months. They may never need to; there may be no occasion on which such a response is required. The purpose of the amendment is to build in an allowance for a situation whereby, through either complexity or timing, one month is inadequate.
	On Amendment No. 96, if the affirmative procedure is to be effective, the House must have access to a reasonable summary of the full information provided to the Secretary of State. If there is to be a debate and there can be no doubt of the need for it, it must be an informed debate. The views of the national authorities both for and against are critical components of that information. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the debate is so informed. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, considers that we are moving at a dizzying pace, it shows how well he has adjusted to the parliamentary process and the timescale to which we work. I believe that we are making the progress that we could all have anticipated and I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which both opposition parties are putting their views at this stage.
	Clause 17 requires the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the Committee on Climate Change and to consider the views of the devolved Administrations before amending the budget. It sets out a slightly different approach to how the views of the devolved Administrations should be taken into account, depending on whether the budgetary period has already begun. I should have thought that it was eminently reasonable to be able to give a more extended time before the budgetary period is under way. We must remember that the consultations will have taken place before the budgetary period has begun. In setting up the budgetary period, the Secretary of State has to involve the devolved Administrations in consultation. However, once the period is under way, amendments will by definition need to be effected more quickly, because they will relate to a more limited timeframe.
	That is all that Clause 17 does. It provides for a reasonable period for the more considered opinion, which is the basis on which the Secretary of State goes forward. However, if adjustments are necessary during a budgetary period and the case has been established for such changes, it is right that the devolved Administrations should respond within those constraints.
	The noble Lord's case would be stronger if the devolved Administrations had put this position to us with the force that he has, but they have been consulted about this clause and are entirely happy with it; they see the logic that underlies it. As my noble friend said, we have carried out very extensive consultations with the devolved Administrations, and Northern Ireland and Scotland have already passed motions of assent to the proposals before us. The noble Lord is as ever extremely well motivated with regard to his amendment, but the devolved Administrations do not think it necessary. If we look at the logic of the way in which the consultation process is to be undertaken, there is not a great deal to object to there. The amendment would greatly limit the flexibility provided in the Bill in Clause 17 and we obviously want to sustain that flexibility.
	I turn to Amendment No. 96. Clause 17 as drafted requires that the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out whether and how the amendment of the budget takes into account any representations by the devolved Administrations. I want to emphasise that it may look as if the clause rather suggests a limited obligation on the Secretary of State. In legal terms, "whether" means "whether or not" and "how" means "how or how not". In other words, the Secretary of State under the phraseology in Clause 17 is obliged to give a very full account in his statement on whether and how the amendment of the budget takes into account the representations of the devolved Administration. It is not a limited or cursory approach but a fully comprehensive analysis of the representations that have been made and the Secretary of State's responses to it. I recognise that as a probing amendment this is a very well motivated amendment and a very accurate one. At first sight of the clause it may look as if the Secretary of State is potentially involved in a rather superficial response in his statements—not so. In order to be watertight in legal terms, that statement has to take in the full range of representation and to argue the case for and against such representation. It is a very comprehensive document and I hope the noble Lord feels assured on that point.

Baroness Byford: I wonder if the Minister could clarify something for me. If for any reason one of the devolved Administrations gets into difficulty one year with being able to reduce its carbon, for example, or work within its limitations, is something built into the Bill that I have missed which makes allowances for that? Scotland could have an emergency for one year and not then be able to fulfil its obligation to the original agreement. Clearly this does not allow for that. It may be that elsewhere in the Bill exceptions have been made for that. I would be grateful for a bit of clarification.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The answer to the noble Baroness is that it is a UK symbol of account and therefore the measurement is the UK. In order for the United Kingdom to be able to meet its targets, it would have to take account of any such potential dereliction on the part of a devolved Administration and it would be beholden upon the Government to make other arrangements to cover for the weaknesses which might obtain in one area. That is a straightforward reflection of the fact that this is a United Kingdom Bill and the Secretary of State is responsible. That is why he has the powers that he has, which we sought to defend when they have been under challenge at times in the Bill. The responsibility rests with him but, by the same token, in the case of failures within the framework of the United Kingdom in any one area he or she must take account and make arrangements accordingly. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Baroness Byford: I might come back again on that one. For example, on waste and recycling, at the moment I understand that the county—if I can go down to a local level—is responsible for targets being met, but it is not the collection body, or the body that enables it to happen. That comes down to district or borough councils. In some ways, my reading of this is that it is exactly the same position. This aspect of the responsibility, willingness or ability of the devolved Administrations to meet those targets will then put on extra pressure. For example, if Scotland—this is a bad example as I am sure that Scotland would not be at fault—were unable to meet those targets, is the Minister saying that the rest of the Administrations within the UK would have to take up the slack? How will it happen in practice?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness will recognise that the targets and the compliance of the devolved Administrations will have been the product of considerable consultation with the Secretary of State before they are arrived at. I am not an expert in local government but in a sense her parallel is exact. In certain areas the devolved Administrations will have their responsibilities and strategies on how to hit certain targets, and they will have reached the decision on their contribution with the Secretary of State. If there were a deficiency, the United Kingdom would be responsible for it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I must pursue this a wee bit further. I accept that if one of the devolved authorities fails for a particular reason to meet its target it is a United Kingdom responsibility to meet the overall target if at all possible. That does not alter the fact that there is then a devolved authority that, for want of a better word, is in dereliction at that time. The question is whether the devolved authority has to catch up on its target or does the United Kingdom—the other two devolved authorities plus England—continue carrying that authority and its deficit ad infinitum? Is there an arrangement by which the devolved authorities have overall responsibility within their targets to catch up their deficits if they find themselves in the unfortunate position of having such a thing?

Lord Davies of Oldham: There is no responsibility written in the Bill in those terms, but the noble Lord will recognise that what is described in the Bill is the relationship between the Secretary of State and the devolved authorities. I appeal to his profound understanding of politics. This is a transparent and open process and in a clear case where there has been a significant dereliction that would be for a pretty good reason. To put it mildly, the whole nation would know of it, not just the devolved Administration.
	Of course the Secretary of State would have to reach a judgment on how reparation would subsequently be made. The judgment might well be entirely right, fair and proper and the devolved Administration who had missed the targets might well be expected to make the reparation next time. On the other hand, it might be judged that no one could have foreseen the circumstances where the failure occurred. Within that framework, the Secretary of State might judge that with its rather greater resources it should be borne by the United Kingdom, which at the end of the day is responsible to the international judgment on these matters. I make the obvious point to the noble Lord, and indeed to the noble Baroness, that we are dealing with a process of consultation and an adjustment of understanding what is sought and should be achieved. There will be toing and froing within that framework in very much the same way as the noble Baroness has identified in her use of other authorities as an illustration. What is clear in the Bill is that the actual achievement of targets is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for that response. He correctly identified these amendments as being of a probing nature, but he and the whole Committee should be grateful to my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Dixon-Smith for raising the issues in the way they have done—for the first time, although we have had indications of them earlier on various amendments. It shows the potential for tensions that might exist between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved national authorities. We live in a democracy where the governance of one part of the United Kingdom is not forced to be the same or to have the same political beliefs as those of another, and tensions can be built into such a system.
	It is particularly interesting that the Minister confirms that it is the United Kingdom that will actually have to adjust to any deficiency of delivery by a national authority. I presume that means buying carbon credits internationally in some way or other, so there is a budgetary implication for the United Kingdom Government. I do not know whether the Minister has thoroughly thought that through. I am very reassured by his comments on Amendment No. 96, which made it clear that the Secretary of State has to do, in effect, what our amendments sought to achieve. I am interested in the response we have had to this very useful debate about the relationship of the Bill, the authorities, the discussions that have currently taken place and the commitments that have been made up to date—knowing full well of course that no parliament can bind its successor and that the agreements that have been made with a devolved authority currently within the United Kingdom may not be persistent. It is important that we have mechanisms for resolving these difficulties, because I suspect that differences of political impact and political priorities may produce tensions within the system on occasion. But, given the lateness of the hour and the commitment of the Minister to talk on these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Alteration of budgetary periods]:
	[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Targeted greenhouse gases]:

Lord Teverson: moved Amendment No. 99:
	Clause 19, page 10, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "a greenhouse gas as defined by section 64(1)"

Lord Teverson: I sometimes think that I am trying to do the Government a favour in moving these amendments but that it is not always appreciated. We come to the issue of defining greenhouse gases and the strange anomaly that although this is called a Climate Change Bill, it deals only with carbon dioxide—not that we in any way underestimate the importance of carbon dioxide's contribution to global warming.
	I remember being reprimanded by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, at the end of the first Committee sitting—and I am glad that she is able to join us now. She told me off when I tried to change the carbon budget period to three years, saying that it did not in any way comply with the international time periods and that we should have an international dimension. She said:
	"It is extremely important that the budget setting period not only chimes with the needs of industry but chimes very much with the international environment. We are not just talking about achieving results on our own. We aim to achieve results in an international context".—[Official Report, 11/12/07; col. 221-22.]
	That is absolutely right. The Kyoto targets relate to greenhouse gases and not just to carbon dioxide, and the EU targets for 2020 and beyond concern greenhouse gases. The UK Government were part of setting that at last year's spring European Council. Looking at the European ETS, we think of it as a carbon trading system, but in fact Annexe II lists the gases included under the directive that set up the trading scheme and—guess what—listed there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. I have never yet met a sulphur hexafluoride, but the point is that all these gases are extremely important in terms of emissions and they are the accepted basket of gases for measuring the effectiveness of the fight against climate change. However, in the Bill we restrict that. We do not do so for ever—there are clauses to amend the list in future—but at present and for the likely future we say that the provision relates just to carbon dioxide. That is not in line with international practice.
	Strangely enough, if we were to say that the target was still 60 per cent, although we would want to change it to 80 per cent, then in terms of the 1990 base our reductions in non-carbon greenhouse gases have been far more effective, which makes meeting the targets of the 1990 base slightly easier. However, I believe that those gases should be included. It is equally as important to reduce them according to their weight and use as it is to reduce carbon dioxide. I suggest to the Government that we bring the Bill in line with international and European practice, both of which we have been a part of, and that we include all greenhouse gases so that we can truly call this a Climate Change Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: If this amendment were to be agreed, I could not call Amendment No. 101 by reason of pre-emption.

The Duke of Montrose: This has become an interesting discussion and I shall be keen to hear the Minister's reply. In particular, perhaps he could clarify for us whether the gases listed under Clause 64 are exactly the same as those in the Kyoto agreement. I understand that under the Kyoto agreement these gases have all been allocated a carbon equivalence and are therefore totted up as part of the savings in carbon emissions.
	At first sight the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seems to be a splendid effort to tidy up the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord has thought about this issue a great deal more than I have done, but there is a critical difference in that under Clause 19 the definition of a greenhouse gas is subject to affirmative resolution, whereas under Clause 64 it is subject only to the negative procedure. I do not know how much argument will arise about which gas should be included or added, but I should like to think a great deal more about whether the affirmative resolution is the route to follow.
	Clause 19 is also part of measures required under Clause 10 which have to be taken into account by the climate change committee, and that is quite an important element. I am sure that further criteria will emerge regarding chemicals that affect elements of the atmosphere.
	I see hydrofluorocarbons in the list in Section 64,. I know that somewhere down the line I have run into chlorofluorocarbons, but I do not know whether they are already included or whether we will be extending this list to cover other elements. There are obviously nasty things out there that can have a large effect on climate change and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Lord Redesdale: I very much hope that the Minister will take on board this amendment. One problem that we often underestimate is the financial impact of not dealing with certain gases. Hydrofluorocarbons—HFCs—are quite extensively used in the production of strawberries in order to prolong their growing season. Without them it would be very difficult to grow strawberries in this country in the way that we have. They have a financial benefit and were exempted by the Government on the basis of their extending the growing season for strawberries. However, as a carbon-equivalent gas, it has a massive impact on the environment. They have the effect of carbon but by many magnitudes.
	Dealing with such gases by means of the affirmative resolution procedure would be a positive step. One problem we will face is the financial implication of including certain gases while excluding others. We should not shy away from the difficulties that some sections of agriculture will face depending on whether use of these gases is banned or allowed. If we are to allow their use then we should understand the implications for carbon equivalence.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wonder whether the Minister will cast his mind back to the recent Greater London Authority legislation which the Government amended to include all greenhouse gases as regards the Mayor's climate change strategy, recognising that that should include the whole basket of gases. Why have the two been separated again in this Bill? With regard to strawberries, the growing season is incredibly long in Somerset and Devon and they do incredibly well anyway.

Lord Crickhowell: At this point in the evening I do not want to delay the Committee on what is an extremely complicated issue. I have just been rereading the Joint Committee's report, which covers several pages on this issue. However, it is worth putting the Joint Committee's conclusion on the record, because it made some recommendations and I would like to have the Government's response to them.
	The Joint Committee—on which the noble Lord who moved this amendment was a member, though he was not able to carry us wholly on his views while in committee—agreed on balance with the Government that it is reasonable for the Bill to focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It went on to say that,
	"this in no way relieves the Government of its responsibility to continue to reduce other greenhouse gases, (both by reasons of domestic necessity and our international obligations). Accordingly, it is essential to monitor all greenhouse gas emissions, in part so as to provide greater transparency when comparing UK performance against EU and Kyoto targets. We recommend that the Bill should be amended to require both the Government and the Committee on Climate Change to include within their monitoring and reporting a clear analysis of all emissions which contribute to global warming, including non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. We further recommend that this be done with the explicit intention of providing a stepping stone to a more comprehensive approach to setting targets across the whole range of greenhouse gases, were that approach to emerge as a result of future international negotiations".
	I think that that is an important set of recommendations directly relating to the point made by the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some indication of how the Government are going to respond to that recommendation.

Baroness Byford: I wonder whether it is just me who is getting confused by the hour. Clause 19(1)(a) clearly defines carbon dioxide, but paragraph (b) refers to,
	"any other greenhouse gas designated".
	I am getting totally lost in this because I would have thought that paragraph (b) covers the very points that the noble Lord raised in moving his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Without differing from my noble friend, who I love dearly, paragraph (b) refers to gases designated by order of the Secretary of State, whereas carbon dioxide is on the face of the Bill. That is a distinction. Can the Minister explain why that distinction is made?

Lord Rooker: I shall try to answer the points, but one of the most confusing things for me is that I am responding to a group made up of Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 and Clause 20 stand part. The two amendments are in Clause 19, and there is another group consisting of Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 106, which affect Clauses 19 and 20, as do Amendments Nos. 103 and 105. I cannot for the life of me see why I am required to speak to Clause 20 stand part when I am only dealing with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 in Clause 19 and I still have other amendments to deal with. The whole point of a clause-stand-part debate is that it takes place at the end of the debates on the amendments when the Committee has discussed the Bill to see whether all the points have been answered. However, I have got a speaking note and at this time of night I am going to stick to it because it is the last time I am coming to this Box tonight. That is unsatisfactory because it is not a clear cut-off, but simply because of the way we are.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, which would include the basket of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases—the Clause 64 gases—within the Bill's targets and budgets framework, we accept that there are strong arguments for including other greenhouse gases in our targets. However, the vast majority—some 85 per cent—of the UK's contribution to climate change is from carbon dioxide emissions. We have a good understanding of the costs and benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, whereas there is much less understanding about the cost-effective potential of reducing other greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the long-term. That is not to say that we are doing nothing about it because we are taking measures in terms of local authority waste to reduce methane emissions from landfill, which account for 3 per cent. In pushing the uptake of anaerobic digestion for manure slurry and other organic waste and attempting to reduce other greenhouse gases, detailed work is going on in the department. However, 85 per cent of our contribution is to carbon dioxide emissions and we know more about how to deal with them.
	The Joint Committee looked closely at this issue, and came to the view that:
	"These issues are complex and, in our view, cannot easily or quickly be resolved".
	It therefore recommended that there should be annual reporting on all greenhouse gas emissions, and we have accepted that recommendation. The Joint Committee also recommended that this should be a stepping stone, as the noble Lord said, towards an approach which addresses all greenhouse gases. That is provided through Clause 19 and will form part of the review of the 2050 target by the Committee on Climate Change. We have asked the Committee on Climate Change to look at this issue as part of its review of the 2050 target, so that we can take an informed decision on the level of the target and on whether to include other greenhouse gases now. I am here as the Defra Minister, it is true, but it is not my day job, and I regret that I do not know whether we have publicly said that we have asked the Climate Change Committee—which we have not set up, but the secretariat is there in shadow form—to do that so the work is under way.
	We believe that it makes sense for all these issues to be looked at together, and that the climate change committee will have the right expertise to do this most effectively. We therefore propose to await the committee's advice before making any decision to change the basis of the target.
	In addition, since the Bill was published, the timing for the committee's review of the 2050 target has been brought forward. We are therefore also looking at whether Clause 19(2) remains appropriate. Clause 19(2) would prevent other greenhouse gases from being included in a budget period which had already started—the intention behind this provision was to provide greater certainty to the relevant sectors of the economy. However, now that the committee will review the 2050 target alongside its advice on the first three carbon budgets, we are reassessing the effect of Clause 19(2) and may—I suspect that means "will"—bring forward a Government amendment on this point in due course.
	Turning to the intention of the noble Lords to oppose the Question that Clause 20 stand part of the Bill, Clause 20 is an important part of the Bill which builds on the provisions of Clause 19. We will shortly discuss this clause in more detail—for example in addressing Amendment No.105—but let me say for now that the main intention of Clause 20 is to ensure the approach taken in the UK is able to match the international context.
	I would urge noble Lords to reserve their judgment on whether or not this clause should stand part of the Bill until we have debated the other amendments relating to it. I realise that in our selection it is Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and Clause 20 stand part, but if we do not push that now we will come back to this and we can clear up the points relating to Clauses 19 and 20 early tomorrow.

Lord Redesdale: Since the committee is coming up with a set figure for greenhouse gases, will that be implemented across government? At the moment there is a discussion about the value of carbon dioxide emissions between Defra and DBERR. If the committee comes up with a sensible solution, will that be adopted by all government departments?

Lord Rooker: I think I had better say yes to that and if I am wrong I will correct it tomorrow.

Lord Crickhowell: I posed particularly the question about the recommendations of the Joint Committee and I thank the Minister for a helpful and constructive answer, which I think does take us a considerable step forward.

Lord Teverson: The reason for including a debate on whether Clause 20 should stand part is because if the amendment was accepted, the other clause would become irrelevant and thus not needed in the Bill. It is not because we are against it, but it is not relevant because greenhouse gases are included in all the provisions of the Bill. That is how I see it, so that is why I have included it here.
	There is a lot of good news here from the Minister, and indeed some of what he has said is new to me. I have learnt that this is being pursued actively. However, given the correct arguments the Government have put in so many other areas on being compliant with international standards, I do not understand why they do not take a decision on that basis and simply go with the rest of Europe and the Kyoto process. Why is that so difficult when the Government would be seen as being more successful in their record so far if they took that route? I would not want to persuade the Minister on that basis, but I am sure that this is an area we shall come back to. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10 pm.